Comment submitted to Justice Dept objecting to Reapportionment Plan of Louisiana House of Reps with appendices and cover letter

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 
TELEPHONE: 504.524.0016 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

IN ASSOCIATION wW TH: 

TEVEN SCHECKMAN 

R. JAMES KELLOGG 
MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

February 3, 1981 

Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Attention: Robert Kwan 
Room 703 -- HOLC Building 
320 First Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 

RE: Comment under Section 5 
on Louisiana House of Repre- 
sentatives reapportionment 

Dear Mr. Kwan: 

Enclosed please find the comment submitted Opposing the reapportionment plan of the Louisiana House of Representatives. 
We will submit additional information on the computer- drawn plan next week. 

Thank you. 

/ sw 

Enclosure  



| 5 
§ é 

COMMENT SUBMITTED TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 
VOTING RIGHTS SECTION 

OBJECTING TO REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN OF 
LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBMITTED BY: 

DIANA BAJOIE 
JOHNNY JACKSON 
JON JOHNSON 
BARBARA MAJOR 
SURVIVAL COALITION 

REPRESENTED BY: 

  / / 8 A { / - { = 

| WILLIAM P. IGLEY () R. JAMES KELLOGG _ 
igley & Scheckman 631 St. Charles Avenue 

631 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-0016 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

    

  

BVEN ay STANLEY HALPIN 
Quigley & heckman 631 St. Charles Avenue 
631 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-0916 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
18 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Telephone: (212) 586-8397  



COMMENT SUBMITTED TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 
VOTING RIGHTS SECTION 

OBJECTING TO REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN OF 
LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBMITTED BY: 

DIANA BAJOIE 
JOHNNY JACKSON 
JON JOHNSON 
BARBARA MAJOR 
SURVIVAL COALITION 

REPRESENTED BY: 

Late LC en fa 
WILLIAM ®. QUIGLEY 3 R. JAMES KELLOGG 

igley & Scheckman 631 ‘St. Charles Avenue 
631 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-0016 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

  
    

  

BVEN nay STANLEY HALPIN 
Quigley & heckman 631 St. Charles Avenue 
631 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-0916 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10619 
Telephone: (212) 586-8397  



INTRODUCTION 

SUMMARY 

HISTORY OF LOUISIANA DISCRIMINATION 

IN VOTING RIGHTS 

CHANGES IN LOUISIANA POPULATION 
1970-1989 

LOUISIANA'S SUBMITTED PLAN 

OBJECTIONS 

ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

CONCLUSION 

APPENDIX 

1. MAPS OF HOW NEW ORLEANS IS AFFECTED 

NEWSCLIPPINGS 

HENDERSON PLAN 

JOHNSON/JACKSON PLAN 

SURVIVAL COALITION PLAN 

LAFAYETTE PLANS, CORRESPONDENCE AND CLIPPINGS 

 



I. INTRODUCTION 

The Louisiana plan to reapportion the State House of 

Representatives is another in a long history of attempts to 

block the voting rights of its black citizens. 

Both the effect and the intention of the legislative 

redistricting are to dilute the political influence of 

black citizens of Louisiana. 

This objection is submitted by black legislators of 

Louisiana as well as others who are affected by the changes 

proposed. Representatives Bajoie, Jackson and Johnson are 

members of the Louisiana House of Representatives. Barbara 

Major is Chairperson of the Survival Coalition. The 

Survival Coalition is a state-wide grassroots organization 

of low and moderate income people. 

This comment outlines several reasons why the Justice 

Department should object to the reapportionment of the 

Louisiana House of Representatives. 

The State of Louisiana is unable to shoulder its burden 

of proving that the challenged plan fairly reflects the 

strength of minority voting power as it presently exists in 

this state. 

 



® | » 
II. SUMMARY 

In several places in Louisiana, where there are growing 

populations of black citizens, the Louisiana legislature 

carved up the new state representative districts so that 

black populations centers would be diluted. 

In New Orleans, despite a change of the City's 

population from 45% to 55% black, the state legislature 

reduced majority black population districts from 11 to 7 and 

increased white majority districts from 7 to 8. 

Statewide, black majority districts decreased from 17 

to 14. 

In other areas of the state districts were carved in 

such a way as to avoid leaving a black population center 

intact, In several instances historic patterns of 

discrimination continued to keep clear black majority 

population districts from emerging. 

Alternative plans proposed to the legislature were in 

line with the population trends and developments in 

Louisiana. One such plan is attached. Additionally, a 

computer-drawn plan is submitted with much smaller 

deviations than are in the legislature's enactment and many 

more black majority districts. 

 



III. LOUISIANA - HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 
IN VOTING RIGHTS 

A. INTRODUCTION 

Ever since Louisiana became a state, on April 30, 1812, 

its government has had a history of making decisions that 

were racially discriminatory and furthered the institution 

of segregation. Time and again Louisiana has attempted to 

block and frustrate the quest for full participation in the 

political, social, and economic systems of the State. 

This section of this objection will briefly sketch the 

context in which this latest action by Louisiana should be 

evaluated. 

B. OVERALL PICTURE OF DISCRIMINATION 
IN LOUISIANA 

Louisiana's first Constitution, adopted in 1812, 

stipulated that voting was restricted to "free white male" 

members of the population. {Article YI, Section 8). Free 

persons of color enjoyed no political rights whatsoever, and 

slaves were denied even the opportunity to learn to read and 

write. 

Not content with this, the Louisiana legislature in 

1842 prohibited any free black persons from coming into the 

state. Act 123 of the 1842 Louisiana Acts provided that any 

"free Negroe" who came into Louisiana would be immediately 

jailed until they could be sent out of the state. Act 315 

of the 1852 Louisiana legislature demanded that any  



I 

H 

i 

| 

f 

i 

i 

i 

i 

4 

| 

1 

i 

i 

' 

i 

I 

i 

i 

slaveowner who wished to emancipate his slaves had to put up 

the expenses for shipping the freed slave to Africa. And 

finally in 1857 the legislature in Act 69 prohibited 

emancipation all together. 

After the Civil War, slavery was abolished by the 1864 

Constitutional Convention. Black citizens got full 

citizenship and the right to vote. 

However, once the federal presence was removed from the 

state, the barriers began again to be erected. 

The 1890 legislature passed Act III which provided for 

"separate but equal" accomodations in rail service. It was 

under this act that Homer Adolph Plessy was arrested on June 

7, 1982. His conviction was upheld in the landmark case of 

Ss F uson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and separate but 

equal was the law of the land until 1954. 

C. VOTING DISCRIMINATION IN LOUISIANA 

Just prior to Homer Plessy's challenge to "separate but 

equal” rail service, Louisiana was moving to deny black 

citizens the political advances made during Reconstruction. 

In 1898, a Constitutional Convention met to create a 

"White Supremacy Constitution."® The convention set up 

strict literacy and property prerequisites to registration 

for voting that would limit black registration. The 

convention then invented a "grandfather clause," which 

exempted any male whose father or grandfather could vote  



4 

before January of 1867. (See 1898 Louisiana Constitution, 

Article 197, Section 5). 

This proved effective. In January of 1897 there were 

130,344 black citizens registered to vote. After the new 

constitution went into effect, all but 5,328 black 

registered voters had been eliminated - a net loss of 

125,024 voters!? 
With the 1921 Constitution, Louisiana again moved 

aggressively to prohibit black citizens from fully 

participating in the electoral process. Article 8, Section 

l(c) instituted a "good character” clause and an 

"understanding" clause to block registration by black 

citizens, Anyone in a common law marriage or who had an 

illegitimate child, or any other character "problem" 

apparent to the registrar of voters could be denied 

registration. The "understanding" clause demanded that upon 

request of the local registrar, a person could be denied the 

right to register if they could not give a reasonable 

interpretation of any section of the Louisiana or U.S. 

Constitution. 

These obstacles to voter registration were operative 

until 1963 when a three-judge court struck them down. U., S. 

v.. Louisiana, 225 P.Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) affirmed 380 

U.S. 145 (1965),  



D. THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL AND 
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION 

Louisiana has actively fought every advance made by 

black citizens since 1812. When an opportunity presented 

itself for progress, Louisiana fashioned a new barrier. 

Only by active use of the judicial system has any progress 

been possible in the area of voting rights and 

reapportionment. 

In "Voting Rights: A Case Study of Madison Parish 

Louisiana" 38 University of Chicago Law Review 726, a 

research project of the American Bar Association shows 

clearly and in great detail the necessity of federal 

intervention by the Justice Department and the federal 

courts in securing and protecting the right to vote in 

Louisiana. 

Every advancement towards equal justice has come about 

only after a substantial battle. Louisiana voting rights 

cases and other actions to end discrimination are legion. A 

few that illustrate: 

Byrd v. Brice, 104 F.Supp. 442 (W.D. La. 1952) - stopping 

use of voucher system to prevent registration in Bossier 

Parish; 

Nyche v. Ward, #4628, (W.D., La, 1954) - barriers to voter 
  

registration in Madison Parish; 

Davis v. N. QO. Public Service, (E.D, La, 1957) =~ 

desegregation of N. O. streetcars;  



[| 

ing, 205 P.Supp. 172 {W.D. La. 1962) = voting 

discrimination in East Carroll Parish; 

U.8, Vv, Ward, 222 F.Supp. 617 (W.D. La, 1963) = voucher 

system in Madison Parish; 

Brown v. Post, 297 P.Supp. 68. {W.D. La. 1968) ~ 

discrimination in absentee ballots; 

U.8., ve. Pogt, 297 P.Supp. 46 (W.D. La, 1969) =~ 

discriminatory manipulation of voting machines; 

one i + 215,641 (W.D. La. 1978) -.purge of black 

voters. 

In voting rights cases the Justice Department and the 

federal courts have been involved in nearly every 

reapportionment of a Louisiana political subdivision: East 

Carroll Parish3, Baton Rouge?, New Orleans”, Iberville 

parish®, Rapides parish’ and many, many others. 

The last statewide reapportionment by the Louisiana 

legislature was also challenged by black citizens. It was 

thrown out and the lines re-drawn by a special master8, just 

as this one should be. 

E. CONCLUSION 

There are many in-depth reviews of the attempts by 

Louisiana to stop black citizens from fully participating in 

the electoral process.’ 

It is clear that this has been going on since 1812, and 

it is unfortunately still going on.  



Louisiana politicians do not respect the constitutional 

rights and the voting rights of its black citizens. Even 

the human rights of its citizens are routinely denied. 1In 

Ironton, Louisiana, an all-black town had to wait until two 

years ago for running water. Until 1978 their water was 

brought in by truck! Only after civil rights remedies were 

pursued and the "60 Minutes" television show became involved 

did the town's residents receive what every other white town 

in Louisiana has for decades - water. If human rights can 

be so blithely denied, is it any wonder that the right to 

vote is denied? 

The plan for reapportioning the U.S. Congressional 

Districts is a continuation of the long history of voting 

rights abuses in Louisiana. In its historical context, it 

appears almost as if it should have been anticipated. Like 

the other instances of voting rights abuse, it must be cured 

by prompt action on the part of the Justice Department and 

the federal courts. 

 



F. HISTORY FOOTNOTES 

Dufour, P., Ten Flags in the Wind, p.239. 

See: isi ry 225 P.Supp. 353 at page 374. 

96 S.Ct. 1883 

594 F.2d 56 

96 S.Ct. 1357 

536 F.2d 101 

315 F.Supp. 783 

333 F.Supp. 452 (M.D. La. 1971) Bussie v., McKeithen. 

Four excellent historical reviews of Louisiana's refusal 

allow black citizens full parity in its social, economic, 

legal and political systems are the following: 

"Modifications in Louisiana Negro Legal Status Under 

Louisiana Constitution, 1812-1957" by Paul A. Kunkel in 

volume XLIV of The Journal of Negro History, pages 1-25, 

January 1959; " 'Voting Rights' A Case Study of Madison 

Parish Louisiana," 38 U. Chicago Law Review, pages 726 - 

787; "Negro Voting Rights" 51 Virginia Law Review 1053 

(Louisiana emphasis, pages 1965 - 1979) 1965; and in the 

reported decision of U,8., v, louisiana, 225 F.Supp. 353 

(E.D. La. 1963), affirmed 380 U.S. 145 (1965) wherein Judge 

Wisdcm gives a detailed lesson in Louisiana's history of 

denial of justice to its black citizens. 

 



( 

IV. CHANGES IN LOUISIANA POPULATION 1976-1988 

In 1970, Louisiana had 3,644,637 citizens. 2,541,498 

were white (or 69.8%) and 1,086,832 were black (or 29.8%). 

In 1980, Louisiana had 4,203,972 citizens, a 15.3% 

increase. Of this number 2, 911,243 are white (or 69.2%) 

and 1,237,263 are black (or 29.4%). 

— LOUISIANA- 

  

Year Total White Black $ White $% Black 
opulatio 

1970 3,644,637 2,541,498 86,832 69.8 29.8 

1980 4,203,972 2.911.243 1,237,263 89.2 29.4 

Change: +559,335 +369,745 +150,431 -.6 -.4 

  

Around the state, the City of New Orleans lost 

population in the white community while the black population 

grew: 

= NEW ORLEANS - 

  

Total White Black $ White $% Black 
Population 

593,471 323,420 267,308 54.4 45.0 

227,482 236,967 308,136 42.5 22.2 

-35,989 -86,453 +40 ,828. -11.9 +14g,.2 

   



V. LOUISIANA'S SUBMITTED PLAN 

The plan submitted by the state reduces the number of 

black population majority districts in Louisiana from 17 to 

14. They admit this in their "statement of anticipated 

effect of change on members or racial minority groups." 

The plan submitted by the state reduces the number of 

black majority districts in New Orleans from 11 districts to 

7. The state admits this in one part of their plan (page 23 

of "Reasons for Reapportionment Change") but denies it in 

another part (see "Statement of Anticipated Effect"). 

The state black population remained stable from 1978 to 

1980 - at 29%. During the decade, the population trends had 

more black citizens coming to the cities. New Orleans, for 

example, went from 45% to 55% black in the 1978's. 

The state glosses over these losses of black majority 

districts by trying to confuse the issue by: 

Comparing legislators with legislative districts; 

Witholding information about population changes; and 

By applying standards to exclude black majority 

districts while violating those same standards in creating 

white majority districts. 

It does not work. 

No amount of false comparison and fancy footwork can 

obscure the facts of real losses in black districts. 

In 1970 districts, with 1980 census data, there were 17 

black majority districts around the state. Under the new  



$ 

plan, there are 14. 

In 1970 districts, with 1980 census data, there were 11 

black districts in New Orleans. Under the new plan, there 

are 7. 

These are real losses. The state does not come close 

to carrying their burden of proving these losses do not 

dilute minority voting strength. That is the effect. We 

submit that is the intention of the state's plan. 

 



Ss 

VI. OBJECTIONS 

A. OVERALL DILUTION OF 
BLACK VOTING STRENGTH 

Prior to the reapportionment of Louisiana's House of 

Representatives there were 17 black majority districts: 

Districts 2, 4, 17, 63, 67, 68, 87, 88, 98, 91, 92, 93, 95, 

96, 97, 101 and 102 were black population majorities with 

1980 census data. 

After reapportionment, there were 14 black majority 

districts - a loss of 3 black majority districts despite the 

fact that the percentage of black citizens in Louisiana 

remained stable. The state does not dispute this loss. 

The new black population majority districts are: 

Districts 2, 3, 17, 34, 58,63, 67, 91, 93,.95, 96, 97, 181 

and 102. (Chart 3, on the next page, shows what happened to 

the districts involved.) 

Twelve districts had their black population percentage 

decline and eight districts increased their black population 

percentage. 

Districts 2, 4, 67, 68, 87, 88, 98,.92, 93, 97, 181 and 

1902 lost a total of 260.9 percentage points of black 

population, while Districts 3, 17, 34, 58, 63, 91, 95 and 96 

gained a total of 99.2 percentage points of black 

population, for a net loss of 161.7 points! 

B. DILUTION OF BLACK VOTING 
STRENGTH IN NEW ORELANS 

In the City of New Orleans the effect of the  



CHART 3 — BLACK POPULTION DISTRICTS (BEFORE AND AFTER REAPPORTIONMENT) 

DISTRICT BEFORE 3WHITE 3BLACK AFTER SWHITE S$BLACK 

2 8.7 91.0 9.7 90.0 

3 : 54.9 44.2 28.8 70.5 

4 46.4 53.8 79.6 19.4 

17 36.0 63.5 31.4 68.5 

34 61.0 38.5 32.5 67.0 

58 41.4 

63 73.6 

67 82.7 

68 53.2 

87 57.8 

88 

90 

91 

92 

93 

95 

96 

97 

 



Legislature's dilution of black voting strength is most 

clearly demonstrated. 

New Orleans has the largest population of black 

citizens in the entire state, In the decade from 1970 to 

1980, the City lost 35,989 in population while the rest of 

the state grew. New Orleans had therefore to give up 3 of 

its 18 seats in the House of Representatives in the 

reapportionment process. 

Despite the fact that New Orleans' black population 

actua increased both i a s and i centage 

of the population from 45% in 1970 to 55% in 1980 (see Chart 

2, page 10), the legislature severely cut back on the number 

of black majority districts. 

Prior to the reapportionment in 1981, 11 of the 18 

house districts in New Orleans had over 50% black majority 

population. Seven districts were majority white. After 

reapportionment, the number of black majority districts fell 

from 11 to 7 and the number of white majority districts 

increased from 7 to 8! An exact reversal of what happened 

to th ity's population! 

Chart 4 shows that prior to reapportionment, Districts 

87, 88,.98, 91, 92, 93, 895, 96, 97, 181 and 102 were 

majority black districts. Districts 86, 89, 94, 98, 99, 100 

and 103 were majority white. After reapportionment,  



¢ » 

Districts 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 191, and 102 were black 

majority districts while Districts 86, 89, 90, 94, 98, 99, 

100 and 103 were white majority. Three other districts were 

renumbered in a different part of the state. 

CHART 4 — NEW ORLEANS DISTRICTS BEFORE AND AFTER REAPPORTIONMENT 

DISTRICT BEFORE S$BLACK 3WHITE AFTER S$BLACK 3WHITE 

86 12.8 82.7 86 15,2 79.7 

87 40.8 87 went to Jeff. Par. 

88 32.0 88 went to Jeff. Par. 

89 82.9 89 76.8 

90 42.8 90 54.5 

91 26.5 921 17.3 

92 32.7 92 Jeff. Par. 

93 15.6 93 27.5 

94 95.4 94 84.9 

95 44.6 95 35.2 

96 33.8 96 79.0 20.0 

97 16.8 97 78.7 19.7 

98 58.0 98 35.9 62.4 

99 5943 99 42.4 56.1 

100 51.0 100 36.7 52.5 

101 9.8 101 84.8 14.4 

192 95.8 3.9 102** 52.0 46.4 

103 34.5 63.9 103 47.8 51,3 

The effect of this is spelled out in the following: 

Prior to reapportionment, black majority districts comprised  



61% of the New Orleans house seats. After reapportionment, 

black majority seats fell from 61% of the New Orleans share 

to 46% of the share, white majority districts increased from 

39% to 54%, while the population of New Orleans shifted from 

45% black to 55% black! The white dominated legislature 

made the black commuity absorb all of the loss in seats that 

came about primarily because over 80,000 white left the City 

in the 1978's. In addition, the legislature has made the 

white seats increase a seat despite the fact that the white 

population fell 16% in the City. 

This is clearly retrogression and also evidences the 

legislature's intent to rob black citizens of a fair 

proportion of the house seats. 

Clearly, New Orleans suffered a serious setback in 

black voting strength by reducing its share of black 

population majorty House seats from 11 to 7. 

Clearly, the white surge ahead in population majority 

seats from 7 to 8, while at the same time losing 10% of the 

population, shows that unjustifiable white advancements were 

made at the expense of black citizens. 

As the New York and North Carolina objections noted, 

the governing body must demonstrate that the plan "fairly 

reflects the strength of (minority) voting power as it 

exists today, "quoting Mississippi v, U. S., 490 F.Supp. 

569, 581 (D.D.C. 1979). 1It is also the duty of the Justice 

Department to compare "the projected impact of the proposed  



® » 
plan with the expected election results" under the present 

plan. (See New York Letter). 

Additionally, several plans that were before the 

legislature were significant improvements over the plan 

adopted. These plans are analyzed in depth in Section VII 

ot this comment. The plan proposed by Representatives 

Jackson and Johnson could have more fairly dealt with the 

eastern part of New Orleans. Other plans of the League of 

Women Voters, the Survival Coalition and the Legislative 

Black Caucus, were also offered. These plans all show how 

possible it was to deal with New Orleans fairly and in a 

nondiscriminatory fashion. The Henderson plan, attached to 

this comment as Appendix 3, affords yet another opportunity 

to reapportion in a fair manner. 

The loss of black majority districts, the increase of 

white majority districts despite substantial loss of white 

population, and the number of alternative reapportionment 

plans that do not dilute black voting strength, indicate 

that the legislature's actions had the effect of diluting 

black voting strength and effecting a "retrogression" in 

minority participation in the political process. 

There are several indications that the Louisiana 

legislature was fully aware of what it was doing and in 

fact, intended to discriminate against black participants in 

the reapportionment of New Orleans. 

The history of Louisiana politics and the repeated  



® ® 
attempts to frustrate gains by black citizens has been set 

out at Section 111, prior to this. These past blatantly 

discriminatory actions of the Legislature must be used as a 

context in which to evaluate the present discriminatory 

actions. Is this present discrimination an accident? 

Historical analysis suggests not. 

In Appendix 2 there are clippings of news accounts 

surrounding the Louisiana reapportionment. A cursory 

examination of these clippings demonstrates that the cries 

of protest from black legislators were raised again and 

again to point out the injustices complained of here. 

Despite these warnings, the legislature plowed ahead 

trampling the obvious criticisms, The total lack of 

response to calls for nondiscriminatory plans again suggests 

a purposeful discrimination. 

The maps of the districts in Appendix 1 also show that 

zigs and zags were made to include and exclude on the basis 

of race. Gerrymandered districts are now the rule and not 

the exception. Natural boundaries are ignored so that 

racial boundaries can be manipulated. 

Finally, there appears no nonracial justification for 

such actions. The Louisiana plan and its supporting 

materials make a token effort to justify their activities on 

the basis of staying within court-ordered boundaries but a 

glance at the contorted districts that result show this is 

only an argument of convenience. The Henderson plan,  



attached at Appendix 3, shows how much cleaner these 

districts look, have a lower deviation, and still not dilute 

minority participation. 

No, if one looks at Louisiana's history, the news 

accounts of the process, the districts themselves, and the 

exclusion of all reasonable alternatives, it becomes clear 

that the Louisiana legislature's reapportionment plan had 

not only the effect but also the purpose of discriminating 

against black citizens. 

C. DILUTION OF BLACK VOTING 

STRENGTH IN LAFAYETTE 

The City of Lafayette has a total population of 81,961 

according to the latest Census data. There are 57,776 

whites and 22,832 blacks with the City's population being 

28.4% black. 

The black community in Lafayette is clearly defined and 

bounded by significant geographical and natural boundaries. 

This area, called Lafayettes Central City, has a 

growing black population. The core of this is precincts: 

1B4; 1Cl: 1C2: 1C3: 2D33 2F1; 2F1: 2F2: 2F3: 3Cl: 3H2: 383; 

311: 312; 313: 3X4; 315; AL3: and 4L4. If placed all 

together these would constitute a black majority district of 

about 56%. 

The legislative plan divides this black population 

center between districts 42 and 44.  



® ® 
All of the other plans submitted to the legislature on 

a state level (the plans of the Survival Coalition, League 

of Women Voters and the Legislative Black Caucus) did not 

divide the black community nearly as much. (See Appendix 6 

for alternative plans.) 

Other plans submitted at the regional hearing on 

reapportionment in Lafayette also did not divide the 

community. These plans include plans submitted by Charles 

Johnson, a prominent Republican, as well as similar plans 

submitted by the Louisiana Black Assembly ("the Darnel 

Plan") and others. (See Appendix 6 for these plans.) 

The Henderson plan, submitted with this comment, also 

shows the ease of implementing a nondiscriminatory plan. 

Considering the overwhelming number of alternatives 

which do not divide the black community, the geographical 

compactness of the district, and the fact that the black 

community is growing - the legislative plan is a 

retrogression and should be voided. In the same sense as 

the City of New York could not justify their reapportionment 

on an argument of maintaining the gtatus r SO must the 

legislature's claim of maintaining the 1978 boundaries 

fall. 

Attached to this comment, in Appendix 6, are copies of 

news clippings outlining the discussion going on during the 

hearings and decisions on reapportionment. These 

demonstrate a willingness to override the legitimate  



J * 
concerns of non-dilution. 

The Justice Department has had to object to at least 

three other Lafayette redistricting plans (two police jury, 

one school board). 

These indicators, plus the absence of any viable 

justification for the legislatively adopted plan, demonstrate 

clear intent of the legislature to purposefully deny access 

of the minority community to the political process. 

 



VII. ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

General alternative plans were submitted to the 

legislature for their review. All of the plans had more 

black majority districts than the adopted plan. 

The Survival Coalition submitted a statewide plan that 

had 20 black majority districts. This plan, which is 

attached as Appendix 5, complemented the House Committe plan 

and added 7 black districts. This plan was rejected by the 

state. 

The Black Caucus submitted a plan which created 17 

black majority districts. This too was rejected even though 

it really only maintained the gtatus quo. 

Attached as Appendix 3 is a plan drawn up by Gordon 

Henderson, an expert in reapportionment, who developed this 

plan using the criteria set out by the state in its 

submission. 

The Henderson plan demonstrates what could be done if 

the legislature truly followed its own criteria. His 

districts have much lower population variances, % total 

versus over 9% by the state! His districts are also 

consistently more compact and cross fewer ward and parish 

lines. Additionally, the Henderson plan creates 

black population majority districts.  



VIII. CONCLUSION 

Louisiana's redistricting plan for its House of 

Representatives is defective because it clearly has the 

effect and the purpose of turning back the clock and again 

diluting the voting rights of black citizens of the State. 

The plan is objectionable and the Justice Department 

should act accordingly. 

 



APPENDIX 1 MAPS OF NEW ORLEANS 

 



APPENDIX 2 NEWSCLIPPINGS 

 



Saturday, October 31, 1981 
  

  

  

  

~ OTHER OPINIO 

By BILL LYNCH 
yin Capita) bureau 

BATON ROUGE — Most of the con- 
troversy over reapportionment 
‘apparently is going to focus on con- 

. gressional redistricting, with plans 
being proposed for reapportioning the 
Legislature expected to have relatively 
clear sailing. 
There undoubtedly will be some loud 
lebate and moaning and groaning from 

“Individual lawmakers who might feel 
ll - aggrieved by the final composition of 

.the House and Senate districts, but a 
. majority of each chamber appears 
ready to produce a final remapping of 
its districts at the special session open- 
ing Monday. 

;- We use the word relatively, because 
10 years ago reapportionment was 

BN decided on by a special master 
_. appointed by a federal judge after the 
 “egislature failed to reapportion itself. 
: At the outset, reapportionment of 
the House probably was the one most 

= fraught with danger, simply because of 
its numbers — 105 House seats com- 
pared to 39 in the Senate and eight in 
be congressional districts. 
Any time any current district's lines 
hanged, there was an immediate rip- 

ioe eifect op a neighboring district. 
SAN meant every House member 

COLUMNS 

  

LOUISIANA CAPITAL REPORT 

for legislative remap 
would feel the effect in one degree or 
other. od 

When Rep. Emile C “Peppi” Brun- 
eau, Ind-New Orleans, and the mem- 
bers of his subcommittee on House 
reapportionment began their job of 
putting together a cohesive, acceptable 
(at least to a majority) plan, they had 
a three-fold task. . , 

First, the subcommittee had to 
arrive at an arithmetical resolution — 
a numbers game matching population 
with a median figure and minimum 
deviation. -  .  .. . : 

Second, it was necessary to develop 
a plan that would meet any standard of 
non-discrimination acceptable to the 
U.S. Justice Department under the. 
Voting Rights Act and one that can 
withstand any court challenge. 

And third, there was the political 
problem of dealing with incumbent 
lawmakers, none of whom wanted 
either to be lumped in a district with 
another incumbent orto have their dis- 
tricts revised in such a fashion as to 
make their re-election more difficult. 

Dividing the state mathematically 
was never a real problem. A computer 
had little difficulty’ with that. It was 
those other two factors, non-discrimi- 
nation toward minorities, principally 
blacks,and the politics of incumbency 
that posed the real challenge. 

The same three parameters may be 
applied to senatorial and congressional 
redistricting. 

Bruneau is convinced that for the 
most part the House subcommittee has 
produced a plan that will survive all 
three tests and pass the Legislature. 

One last hurdle in Caddo Parish, 
Bruneau said, seems to have been 
worked out, with the Caddo delegation 
devising new districts for themselves 
that they can vote for. There still may 
be some other minor amendments on 
precincts here and there, but for the 
most part, the plan will stand up, 
Bruneau predicted. | : 

Black legislators have indicated dis- 
pleasure with the House plan because 

© it doesn’t provide enough black major- 
ity districts to assure more black rep- 
resentatives. Blacks have asked for as 
many as 18 such districts in the state, 
but the number is now at 18. 

If the present proposal passes, the 
next resort for the blacks would most 
likely be the courts. Given the mood of 
the Reagan administration, anything 
other than the most blatant discrimina- 
tion is not likely to be rejected by the 
Justice Department. 

The present legislative course of 
action is for each chamber to take up 
its own reapportionment plan first. The 
House and Governmental Affairs Com- 

RR ETT 

NS 

“mittee, which has charge of all of the 
reapportionment proposals, will begin 
its hearings Tuesday. 2 : 

~ Bruneau said he believes the Public - 
Service Commission reapportionment 
plan will be disposed of first, quickly 
and easily. There has been very little 
opposition to what has been proposed 
for the five public service districts. 

Then, he said, he hopes the commit- 
tee will move on to the House reappor- . 
tionment plan before taking up con. 
gressional redistricting — the most - 
controversial of all. 

He said that whatever bill the House 
passes on, House reapportionment is 
unlikely to have any difficulty in the 
Senate. Conversely, whatever the Sen- 
ate adopts for Senate reapportionment 
will have little trouble in the House. 

Bruneau had tried unsuccessfully to 
" get the governor to hold a special ses- 
sion dealing only with reapportion- 
ment. But the governor included 41 
items in the call, a number of which 
call for technical changes in botched- 
up laws passed in the regular session. 

But there is also over $100 million in 
appropriations being planned, includ- 
ing spending from the Enhanced Min- 
eral Trust Fund. 

“Hopefully,” Bruneau said, “we 
won't get the reapportionment process 
caught in the log-rolling   

The Times-Picayune; Ihe States-liem Section 1, Page 11 
 



Wednesday, November 4, 1981 

House remap is sent to floor 
The Times- Pics une/ The States-Item Section 1, Pagel 19 
  

Section 3. Lhe 
TY ides 

after amendments fought off | 
ByBILLLYNCH =: 3 
Capital bureau ont thet, 

_ BATON ROUGE — The House and Gov- 
. ernmental Affairs Committee Tuesday 

_ voted 12-2 in favor of a reapportionment 
plan for state representative districts, 

sending the proposal to the floor after 
rejecting a series of amendments designed 
to increase black voter strength. 

The House could vote on the bill Wednes- 
day with a suspension of the rules ang send 
it to the Senate. : 

~The committee approved - — with only 
{ - minor amendments — the basic plan, pre- 

sented by a subcommittee headed by Rep. 
‘Emile C. “Peppi” Bruneau, Ind-New 
Orleans. - 

‘A totally different plan that would have 
increased the number of black-rhajority 
districts to 18, a product of the black cau- 
‘cus, was rejected 13-1 by the committee. 

+" An amendment proposed by Reps. Jon 
Johnson, D-New Orleans, and Johnny Jack- 

son, D-New Orleans, was defeated 11-3. It 

would redivide three House districts to 

allow Johnson and Jackson to run separa- 
tely. Under the Bruneau plan, the two 

would have to run against each other for 
re-election. 

Committee members spent several hours 
considering another amendment that would 
have created a black-majority district in 
the parishes of Iberville and Ascension. 

The committee initially adopted the 
amendment, but after lengthy hassling 
reversed itself. 

finally approved provides for black- major: 
ity districts in the state. 

-An additional black-majority district was 
created in Caddo Parish as the result of a 
compromise between lawmakers in the 
area. 

Whatever plan eventually pr from 
the Legislature will have to be submitted to 
the U.S. Justice Department for its 

.approval. In addition, there have been indi- 
cations that dissatisfied blacks Joy take 
the issue to court. : < : 

An amendment offered by Eep. Fg 
Gee, R-Algiers, seeking to base a represen- 
tative district in Terrytown, was defeated - 

8-4. Bruneau objected to the change _ 
“» because of the effects it would have on 

. adjacent districts. : 

Rep. Richard Turnley, D-Baton Price 
who submitted the statewide plan for the 
Legislative Black Caucus, noted that 10 
years ago the House contained only one 
black lawmaker and a special master . 
created single-member districts that 
increased the number to eight. 

He said the state population is about 
38 percent black, with representation in’ 
the 105-member House far short of that. 

The black caucus’ position drew some 
support from the Louisiana League of 
Women Voters, whose board of directors 
approved a plan calling for more black: 
majority districts. 

June Rudd, president of the League, pre- 
sented its own redistricting plan to the 
committee, which turned it down. =; i 4 o A 

Rudd said the League had simpenias Tz 
the reapportionment committee for its pro- 

. cedure, but disagreed with the final prod- 
uct. 

Johnson told the committee that there 
was a possibility of drawing up to eight 

black majority districts in New Orleans 
alone, but that one seat is being lost to 
blacks because he and Jackson live in ihe . 
same proposed district. 

The black lawmakers are expected | to 
. take their case to the full House. ~- 

New Orleans will lose three seats in.» 

the House, leaving 13 districts in Orleans 

alone and two divided with other parishes. 
-The median population figure jor each dis- 

* trict is 40,038. fe 

Bruneau advised the full a that 
the subcommittee had considered the black 

legislators’ proposal at length previously. 
‘He said there were objections to splits in 
the Florida and River parishes and in east- 

. ern New Orleans. 

One amendment which passed ahfots the ~ 
*. New Orleans districts of Bruneau, Rep. Leo. 

Watermeier and Rep. Avery Alexander. 
Under the amendment, Precinct 8 in’ 

Ward 5 would be shifted from District 93 to 
. District 94 (Bruneau’s); Precinct 7 in Ward 
"2 from District 95 to 93 (Alexander’s) and 

Precinct 19 in Ward 3 from District 94 to 9% 

(Watermeier’ Ss). : fos 

Whatever bill is adopted by the ‘House is 
-expected to have little difficulty in the Sen- 

.- ate. Each chamber is expected to pass the 
: other’s reapportionment bill. 

   



i 
4 [7 5 of \ . I$: TH Shak. Lo MIPHLY COrmpuiers for ifahnvi) 0 i 3 : > as substantiqily com- 

High School and ae cepted as su 2 : ; 

3 Ba i at 

Wig reroofing iw) at Carver, Kijtena Wp ORBITED — Janet Kirkland, a Columbus, Ga., stu Js 4 

’ 
mentary se s and the ? a g ih H c roo { 

Mimosa Park and NY ' Ho lemeniary Sohouts ) "5 s- dent, makes her own light show wih He ely of ’ flash wa 

Evaluation and Vocational [raining Center in Des- flashlight on a string and a long time exposure. ash wa treo 
i CERIN 

Lil x 

XJ 

Hh TOYS * BIKES» HOBBILS 

= 

UGE i>. The Ho y Pproved 84'to’ 15 a’new, 
L l 

, reapportionment 
Plan for the House: 

s as no incumbent 
‘that is almost certain to wing up in 

be grounds for a 
the courts under a challenge by black 

g the plan as discrimina. 
legislators. 1 | - 

' tory to blacks. 
Sg 

;" The measure was sent to the Senate The amendment was defeated 51 to 
where backers believe it will have 733. fel ert i 
;relatively easy passage. j ! All but one other amendment adding 
¢ Rep. Johnny" Jackson Jr., D-New:" (.. “lack districts in the state was 
‘Orleans, said it js almost defin "defeated. ™e lone exception was a 
:black leaders will 

revision of district lines in Assumption Parish where a 50-50 split was created E in a district now held by Rep. C.J.. § Russo, D-Donaldsonvilje. 
SEI 

KEEL under the 
Pit, That amendment was proposed by 

RU KITE vo 
rs | Neau and was adopted without 

sought develop 
3 objection. A similar amendment that 

\ 

i portionment plan that woulq have pro- ‘had’ been Proposed by Bajoie earlier : Save $10 
vided at least 18 black majority dis. "was defeated. . |, on HR oy AV ays ikoe 

tricts in the state, : Rep. Leo Watermeier, D-New 4 id Oe 12 Speed Sikes 

Rep. Emile C, “Peppi” Bruneau, Ing- Orleans, wag successful in getting a Kg ‘cushioned handlebars REG. 125 ¢ 

- New Orleans, chair 
change in hig district, picking up Pct. # center pull caliper brakes. SAL! 

mittee that devi an fi 320 in District 94, moving il to his dis. § 27" Boys 12 Speed Le Crande : 

approved by the : trict 95, Watermeier ang Rep. E. a 

new district lines, 
Henry Heaton are pitted against each 

* Bruneau said, “I am ready to go (o other in the realignment. 
: | 

the Justice Department with my head . Most of the debate during the sey- 
held high.” 

: eral hours of discussion on the biil cen- bt 
He noted that there are only 10 tereq around black efforts {qo amend |§ 

blacks now in the House and the new ~ the measure. 
% 

1) 
plan proposes creating 14 districts with However, Bruneau also drew consid- |§ 
black majority populations. . * erable praise from several white col- 

“We tried to be very, very fair about leagues for the manner in which he 
; 

that,” Bruneau tog the House in his "directed the Subcommittee’s work, |B 
ey 

closing argument. 
: Rep. Quinten Dastuge, D-Metairic |§ |. Save $7.00 av i 

+! He said that for example, in New said, “I feel the plan as jt is set out was |g Traffic Palvel 8 

Orleans, the committee could have ..done in the best interest of the people | Y Battery operated, now with * a 

created a district that woulq have pit- of Louisiana. I don’t fee] the black vote | 2 flashing red lights. , Battery HE 

    

    . 

CE 
A 
E
R
]
 

ted Rep. Mary Landriey against Rep, was dispersed. Whether it stands up in tT & rechorger included, 

Diana Ba joie, two of the three women court remains to be seep,” { 

  

in the Legislature, 
© "Jackson, a black, said that. he knew '§ 

“He said that he chose not to do that games’ had been played with the plan 
and wound up devising new districts * for New Orleans. 

2 
with Landrieu’s going from a majority “Many of you who come from mar § 
black to white. : ginal districts have stooq before my § 

Bajoie objected tha 
people and said, ‘I wij protect your ' interests.’ What will you tej} them black ma jority now?” Jackson said, 

i based on the Rep. Avery Alexander, D-New | white law-. Orleans, said, “ believe we shouiq sub- ricts where mit it to the courts in the beginning lack, > and let the courts make 3 plan.” 
Rep. Richard Turnley, D-Baton Squeeze release bar, 

Rouge, ‘a black, said, “What you are - Washable pad & canopy. 

mittee hearing, about to do is wrong, If segs us back 10 | © REC. 56.99 96 

-a number of proposals were years... 
: ~ SALE 8 

g | Siro 
by 

BS 
‘ 

a 

I
 

RE
A 

Er
os
 

N
K
 

Ts
 

4 | Save 7.03 
i | Maxi Taxi Strojter : 

Flip-up safety lock, 

1 
>.
 

9
.
 

H 

  

0 redo districts jp ‘New. Rep. Alphonse Jackson, D-Shreve. | ; 
Orleans, Bator Rouge, Alexandria ang 

“We should have 
Lake Charles. ai, 

i Rep. Jon: Johnson, D-Neyw Orleans, and Jackson lost bid to have their      



, 1981 ovember 6 N Page 18 ‘ sion 1   See 
\ wine 

tem 

= is 
R=; 
=
 

=
 

= 

0 3 © hed 

Vi ol] 
i = L   

Issued Dally by The Times-Picayune Publishing Corp.B :       

Editor 

Associate Editor, News 

Associate Editor, Editorials 

FERGUSON 
FRITZ HARSDORFF 
MALCOLM FORSYTH 

RY 

"CHARLES A 

* ASHTON PHELPS 
Chairman of the Board 

' ASHTON PHELPS JR 
President and Publisher   

New Orleans, La. 70140 . 

    

  2: at 3800 Howard Ave. 

EDITORIALS 

      

A
 

re 
A
S
S
 

a
e
 

T
c
 

Touryay 
; 

R
H
 

SER 
L
A
 
O
N
 

SA 
A 

r
e
 

gp 
: 

E
N
E
 

A
T
T
E
N
 
es 

N 
S 

N
A
N
 

S
S
R
N
 

A
a
 

N
i
e
 
—
 

SN 
i
 

S 
a
 
S
R
I
 

\ 
N 
m
r
s
s
’
 

“ 

S
U
R
 
R
S
 

cr 

 
 
 
 

R
R
 

S
M
a
 

S 
N
N
N
 

N
N
E
R
 

A
 

N
N
N
 

a
 

‘ 
a
a
n
 

> 
S
a
v
a
.
 

N
a
a
n
 

a
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 



  

an 

Hes, 

“SPUR 

  

Black pSliticiars 
say remap plan 

for courte 
2 * Bruneau, a white conservative" law- §i 
‘maker, disagreed strongly. with’the 

11S headed 
By BILL LYNCH 

+ Capital bureaus 
-» BATON ROUGE. —- "Black political 

- leaders who claim they'did not get a 
~ fair shake in reapportionment of state 
legislative districts say they plan to: 
challenge the redistricting plan that : 
appears headed for adoption... 

Rep. Johnny. Jackson, 'D- New. 
Orleans, a leader of the Legislative 

# Black:Caucus, said it is a foregone. 
#4 conclusion that the plan adopted by the 

. House ‘to* ‘restructure - ‘its: 105 election. . 
have little chance of electing anypne to 

" the House. 
districts will be adopted by the Senate.” 

“We'll:be. going to court,” Jackson’ 
said. “We have to.” --'s 

- Rep. Diana Bajoie, D-New Orloahs 
another black House member, said she 
is prepared to take her objections to 
the U.S. Justice Department, which 
must review :the work of the Legisla- 
ture on feapportionment, der the 
1965 Voting Rights Act. 

- The black leaders point © population 
statistics compared ‘to representation 
statistics as the basis of their concern.” 
"Of the 4.2 million people in Louisi- 
ana, almost 30 percent are black. =" * 

However, 10 of the House's 105° 
members are black, 9.5 percent of the 
total. on 

The situation in the Senate is simi- 
lar. The present. ratio is 37 whites to 
two blacks. An additional black-major- 

‘ity district is being created in the Sen- 
ate reapportionment plan. 

Bajoie claims that under the reap- 
portionment plan approved by the 
House last week, the chances of blacks 

"being elected now has diminished 
rather than increased." 

“ - Bajoie pushed ‘a plan that would 
have provided at least 18 black-major- 

ity population districts, of which.14 
* would have had black majorities, in 
voter registration. 

The caucus plan was revised fre- 
‘quently, but generally called for seven 

i" ‘black districts in New Orleans, which 
Is losing three seats in the House. 
“After the plan offered by the caucus 
“was defeated in the House and Govern- 

‘ ie Affairs Committee, blacks 
tried to amend the committee’s bill on 

' the floor of the House in piecemeal 
~ fashion, but without success. 

The only amendment affecting 
‘blacks that passed was one offered 
‘by Rep. Emile C. “Peppi” Bruneau, 
'"Ind-New Orleans, which established a 

jf district in Assumption Parish with a 
“slight black-majority population. 

- Bruneau was chairman of the sub-- 
-- committee that devised the House plan 

" icism from blacks because some of the 

: districts were assigned a heavy con- 

“Reps. Jackson and Jon ‘Johnson ended. 

‘lawmakers tried in vain to get the 
‘ House to redo’ the districting for the 

  
black’ politicians’ contention ‘that the 
House reapportionment. pian is 
‘weighted against blacks. * 
He said he would hold his head high 

in going: to the Justice Department for 
review. A 
Using ‘the same percentage of 70. 30, 

white-to-black that blacks use on their’ 
side, Bruneau suggested that if:each   “district were apportioned on the basis : 
of the statewide ratio, blacks would 

The committee plan drew some erit- 

centration ‘of blacks, whose numbers 
might have added to the black popula-’ 
tion in other districts in sufficient num: 
.bers to give them another majority. 

One of the battles over the numbers 
game concerned New. Orleans, where 

up in the same district. The two black 

area to put them in separate districts 
by redrawing the lines to include what 
amounts to a new white-majority. dis- 
trict. o Eh 

Jackson warned his colleagues Saat” 
he would take the matter of his district 
to court. 

Bajoie said 17 districts contain a 
black-majority population. This means 
that seven whites are serving in dis- 
tricts with black population majorities. 
In 12 of these 17 districts is there a 
black voting majority. 3 

Statewid2 voter registration is 1.9. 
million. Of that number, 454,000, 23.9 
percent, are black, ‘according to the’ 
commissioner of elections. aff, 08 

In the Black Caucus’ push for more 
black districts, it drew support from 
the state board of directors of the |: 
League of Women Voters, who recom- 
mended to the House committee a plan 
providing for 17 blaclemajony dis-* 
tricts. yak 9 i W* we It bi a ii   June Rudd of Baton Rouge, state 
president of the League, told the com-. 
mittee that blacks are under-repre- 
sented in the state and argued in favor: 
of drawing distict lines to provide [huss 
increased black representation. 

The League's recommendation’ was fd 
shot down in committee, with Bruneau } 
leading the resistance to changes... fra 

In the end, he said that the commit’ 

tee had been. fair an Jad considered 

LIRA RL 

V
A
N
N
S
-
‘
S
N
V
A
T
Y
O
,
 

MA
N.
 

ry 

O
N
I
N
J
Y
O
W
 X
 

“
Y
d
A
W
H
A
O
N
 

    

    
 



    

  

Wednesday, November 1H Juni ‘The Times- cPicay ung/ihe, 

a i a Re ay 

.ies-ltem Section 1; Page 19 
    

AA i A Gd Li ni 

it 

£ Ann Mon 2 tol 

  

House remap plan OK'd 
by Senate committee 
ByBILLLYNCH +. 
Capital bureau foo 
BATON ROUGE. —. A inh com-~ 

mittee Tuesday approved;:a. House- 
passed plan to reapportion state repre- 
sentative districts after narrowly 
rejecting an amendment sought by 
black New Orleans legislators. 
y The Senate and Governmengal 

Affairs Committee voted 4-1 to send 
the bill to the Senate floor, where a 

vote is expected Wednesday. 
Reps. Johnny Jackson and Jon John- 

son, beth D-New Orleans, lost their bid 

by a 3-2 vote to have another New 
Orleans district created with a black- 
population majority for the 9th Ward. 

As the bill now stands, Johnson and 
Jackson will be pitted against each 
other for re-election in a district with 
an overwhelming concentration of 
black voters. 

Both have predicted that the issue 
will wind up in court. by i 

Jackson said that, since the. redis- 
tricting plan for the 105 House seats 
‘was based largely on protecting 
incumbents, and two black incumbents 

| are pitted against each a the plan 
- would be undone in court 

i Sen. Joseph Tiemann! D-Metairie, 
"committee chairman, cast the tie- 

breaking vote on the Jackson-Johnson | 
amendment. Sens. Anthony Guarisco, 

..D-Morgan City, and Leonard, Chabert, 
‘ D-Houma, also voted for; the amend- 
ment. Voting against it] were Sens. 
John Saunders; D-Pine Pf airie,. ‘and 
Ceci} Picard, D-Maurice. 1 

Fbr a moment it ap red the 
amendment would carry. When Guari- 
sco moved for approval, Tiemann 
asked if there were any objections. No 

| on¢ spoke. As Tiemann was in the pro- 
cess of announcing the motion carried 
without objection, Saunder spoke up 
and objected. oy 

° ® |   

Guarisco said, “Ips too: late, ” but 
Tiemann disregared bm and called 
for the vote. 
. Any hd bios to the plan for the 
House by the Senate: might have upset 
what appears to: be an unwritten. 
agreement between the two, houses to 
leave each other’s plan intact. 

The House has yet to consider the 
Senate’s plan for reapportionment of 
Senate districts. 

Sen. Thomas H. Hudson, D-Baton 
Rouge, who handled the Senate reap- 
portionment bill before the committee, 
said the House had put in thousands of 
hours considering its ‘reapportionment 
plan and the Senate just did not have 
the time to devote to Tevising that 
plan. 

He said the bill met all the legal cri- 
teria for district reapportionment, 
including being within allowable devia- 
tion factors from the median and 
increasing the number of black-major- 
ity districts from the present 10 to 14. 

Hudson noted that the bill: had not 
drawn opposition from all blacks since 
two, Reps. George C. Connor and Louis 
Charbonnet III, both D-New Orleans, 
voted for it on final passage. :- ° 

Guarisco countered that he under- 
stood about gentlemen's agreements, 

but distros) that the Senate should ; 
not make alterations to obvious i nage 

© ties. 

He labeled the Rouse plan insofar. as 
the 9th Ward division as “obvivisly 
inequitable and unfair.” 

Johnson told the committee the Sen- 
ate had a responsibility Ereater: than 
any gentleman’s agreement. % 

He said that there are 154,000 resi- 
dents in the 9th Ward, of whom 95,000 
are black. He said that a new district is 
being created along the New Orleans 
Lakefront that would have a white. piixaastis 
majority. voter registration, while two 
districts now reprevenisd by blacks : are 
being combined. 
‘Sens. Nat Kiefer and Theodore M. 

- “Ted” Hickey, both D-New Orleans, 
endorsed the Jackson-Johnson amend- 
ment. The two represent parts of the 
9th Ward. © ~ yr as 

“Any amount of dilution of blacks 
from existing districts may not be per- 
mitted,” Kiefer said concerning a US. 
Justice Department review of the plan 

* under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 
Sen. Henry E. Braden IV, D-New 

Orleans, one of two black senators, 
termed the districting plan for the area 
as glaringly inequitable and unconsti- 
tutional. © ~ 4 M 

  

   



Times Piece = 
WE 

  

4 ox 

Capital bureau -":.-. 

BATON ROUGE — The Senate gave final legislative approval Wednesday : to a bill that reapportions the 105 state % House districts, 
The bill was approved, 32-7, and now goes to Gov. David C. Treen for his signature. . 
Some New Orleans senators tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to prevent state Reps. Johnny Jackson Jr. 

and Jon Johnson, both D-New Orleans, 
from being placed in the same House district in the city’s 9th Ward. 

Sen. William J. Jefferson, D-Orleans, 
said the House-approved redistricting ‘plan would dilute black voting strength ie: as well as force the two black incum- 2 bents to face each other for re-elec- 
tion. 

-- oa EJ 

282 

  

2 a3 ad Su a tsa mes am nc 

£4 de Usb ade ee in debi 1 Sc SLE 

ite majority 
“and no incumbent representative. 

Under agreement with the House, 
Kiefer said, it was understood that nei- 

‘ther house would alter the plan 
.advanced by the other for reapportion- 
ment of their own houses. 

But Kiefer predicted that “if the 
' House plan goes to the (US.) Justice 

Jefferson said the 9th Ward's popula- - 

Department. it will never, never stand up.” 
Ji J ) 

The Justice Department, under the 
- 

- - - 

  

Civil Rights Act, must approve any reapportionment plan voted by the Legislature. One purpose of that is to assure that voting strength of blacks is not diluted by gerrymandering or other means. Lp 
Sen. Henry E. “Hank” Braden IV, D- New Orleans, Supported Jefferson's amendments, saying he could not abide by any agreement with the House in this instance because of the “one glar- /ing, horrible inequity . . . unconstity- tional on its face.” 
He said he would prefer that the Senate correct the bill “rather than Some apppointed judge.” 
The Senate rejected the amendment 20-15, as well as one by Sen. Armand Brinkhaus, D-Sunset. Brinkhaus wanted to place the town of Washing- ton in St. Landry Parish in one district rather than split it down its main street. 

—— — 

  

o
p
 

+ p
m
—
 

 



  

  

  
Section 1, Page 37 Sunday, November 15, 1981 

Grr mre ttre ; IS ART TU 

OUR OPINIONS 
EDITORIALS 

  rn 

  

  

  

  

/ iw? 3 » 2 ny A ” 3 

Gr Le ek 4 75 4 : 4 
7 i A Rs 

~The redistricting dance 
The special session of the Legislature “has Gov. David Treen says he thinks the plan will 

done its special duty — redrawing the districts 
served by the state’s congressional delegation, 
its legislators and its Public Service Commis- 
sion members — but there will clearly be more 
to it than that. According to the federal Voting 

pass federal muster, but if it is taken to court it 
could be some time before final'judgment., 

The patchwork the Legislature stitched 
together for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Congressional 
Districts does not argue well. for the Legisla- 

Rights Act of 1965, the plan must be approved 
ay the US. Justice Department, and black leg- 

ture as reapportioner. GOP Rep. Robert 
Livingston's 1st District was rammed into the... 

siators are expected to mount a court chal: middle of Democratic Rep. Lindy Boggs’ 2nd 
lenge. ad District, dividing Uptown and isolating Carroll-">" 

The major area of change was South Louisi:” ton. Jefferson Parish, instead of getting a distr: ana, where the 1980 census showed a con- ‘ict all or ‘almost all its own, 3 still divided, 8 
nuing rise in population. And to the inevitable " though it becomes the majority in the new nd... 
oull on redistricters to preserve the political District. Four redrawn legislative. districts: 
character of individual districts (and with it, : | wound up with two incumbents, +.» 0 on 
nevitably, the political security of their incum- - Without impugning the honor and responsibi- 
sents) is added the push to increase the politi- lity of legislators — or councilmen when redis- 
sal power of black voters. Black legislators tricting — there would seem to be a built-in... 
gue that black voters have been given short = conflict of interest in an elective body’s draw- 
ncift. : . ing the districts in which its incumbent mem- 
New black-majority legislative districts were bers will be seeking re-election. Fifteen states 

treated — a senate district in Baton Rouge and now have some form of redistricting commis- 
louse districts in Shreveport and the River sions or agencies or advisory mechanisms. 
‘arishes. But black legislators argued that Théir recommendations must still be approved 
here should have been three mor< ‘1 the . by their legislatures, but in most cases it is 
specially sought-after blagk-majuL.., wuegiegs little more than a pro forma exercise. It might rim diate 0 Np r ~ ager ne found] d 2 

1100 

   



APPENDIX 5 SURVIVAL COALITION PLAN 

 



LJ -— ~, : 

DISTaRICTS 

HouSE ar @ SURVIVAL 

CommITTEE | apucus  CoabLITION 
PLAN (Amended) PLAN B PLAN B 

D>   
=a |: CADDO 

  

RREAZ: CALDWELL, TT. REROLL 

FRANKLIL, TALESON, . : 

3 DiSoN 
LF SPLLE, MAD) y =. 

ME REHCUSE, BUACHITA, 

RiICF i. RNZ,TE NIRS, wh LATROLL, 

WINN 

—_— ee ® e® vce SEE e - we - = 

yf 
  

AREAZ: ACAD (A, LAFAYETTE, 
ST. LANDRY 

Oo 

—_e-- ww -—t eer > B® mE => =e 

‘I ARER 4: ASCENSION, Asuna D5 3 
. TereERrsoN, Laspue CHE, 

ST, CHARLES, ST. TAMES, 

ST, JouN : 

SE 

      
  

Laren Gr ASCENS (0K, ASSumPTIOL 
£. B AToN ROUGE, EFELICIAMY 2 2 

T3ERVILE E, Po INTE Cou SEE, 

W.B ATO N BOUGE, WWFELL ClANA   DL2 pez |D63 Dé? 

DAT i -—e ® we Bee ee wes owm=e=, 

DAT Bioz | Dab Diol iD 93 

4 5 sie 

voz | Dp Dioy 

+ Re YN Outs de These ft 
4 bay Br bay 

pT AS | ’ : bas D4 

  

AREA 6° ORLEANS           
       



A REAPPORTICONMENT PLAN FOR 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Annie A, Smart 

Chairperson on Reapportionment 

Survival Ccalition of Louisiana 

Willsam A. Mesaux 

Technical Consultant 

Survival Coalition of Louisiana 

Presented to: 

Louisiana House of Representatives 

Special Committee on Reapportionment 

October 8, 1981 

   



CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDC 

CADDC 

CADDO 

CAZDO 

CADDO 

CACDC 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

S
D
N
 

E
W
N
 

LJ 

-
d
 

=}
 

I
 

. 

wd
 

wd
 

wd
 

od
 

N
O
N
 
I
A
N
 

. 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 1 

TOTAL 
CPULATION 

1980 

2,045 
1,323 

619 
777 
528 

| 
W
a
u
 

2
0
 

9
d
 

= 
a
u
n
 es

 

A
d
 

1)
 
N
N
T
 

fy
 

i
n
e
 

ot
 
I
D
T
Y
 

W
 

~)
 

} 

N
N
 

wl
 

» 
W
O
N
 

O
N
 
=
 

| 

N
n
 
N
E
F
 

( 
R
V
,
 

RV
 
R
V
R
]
 

O
o
o
o
 

OO
 

y 
vy

 
Nh
 3-5 

lt 
5-2 
5-3 
é-1 

   



HOUSE (LAD DISTRICT: 2 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

FS
 
V
I
N
 

BE
 

0 
S
e
y
 

5 
é 

; 4 
8. 
9 

10 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 3 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

—
d
 

O
W
N
 

&H
 
U
N
 

.
:
Q
 

-—
d 

->
 

-d
 

iH
 

= 0 = I>
» i~
 

wv
 

   



CADDO 
CADDO 

CADDC 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDC 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDC 
CADDO 

~
N
o
w
u
m
 

Pe
s 
W
W
N
 

2
 

. 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 4 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1580 

3809 
1462 
2049 
3678 
ion 
1576 
1218 
RM 
2258 
2259 
152 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 5 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 
1930 

CADDO : 

2397 

CADDO 

1340 

CADDC 

15256 

CADDO 

3197 

CADDO 

17585 

CADDO 
: 

1452 

CADDO 

2440 

CADDO 

3077 

CADDO 

4578 

CADDO 

1128 

CADDC 

1419 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDO 

CADDC 

CADDO 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 6 

TOTAL 
. POULATION 

1980 

CADDO 
2475 

CADDO 
2463 

-CADDC - 1194 

CADDC 
232% 

CADDO 
179% 

CADDO 
1247 

CADDO 
1430 

CADDO 
1385 

CADDO 
1927 

CADDO ; 
1757 

CADDO 
1945 

CADDO 
1297 

CADDO 
881 

CADDO 
1292 

CADDC 
2526 

CADDO 4-2 L6e 

CADDO 
4760 

CADDO 
1134 

CADDO 
324 

CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 
CADDO 

id
 
O
v
o
 

W
N
 

. 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE - (LA) DISTRICT: 7 

TOTAL 
POPULATICH 

1980 
  

1527 
7410 
2550 
4223 
1594 
4060 
1609 
2010 
2030 
503 
711 
225 

1412 
2333 
904 
810 

1375 
3367 

. 

1 nN
 

N
o
 
N
N
N
O
 

L
i
v
 

M
h
 

yy
 
N
Y
 

o
N
 

E
W
N
 

=
 

o
o
l
 

Bo
 

ky
 

w
e
e
n
 

i 

>
 

: 
A
d
 

As
 

“
3
.
3
 

3
0
 

0
0
O
0
W
N
 

4 

i 

8 
  

38753 

   



BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIER 

OQ
 
0
0
0
 

H
U
N
 

=
 

. 

- o . 

TOTALS 

  

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 8 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

} 4 | N
 

n
N
 

oo
 

> 
00
 

t
o
r
n
 

WN
 

H
E
U
 

u
 

n
d
 

dl
 

l
e
y
 

N
N
N
 

N
N
N
 

E
L
 

2
1
0
 

0)
 

O
s
 

U
n
b
 

1Y
 

 



BOSSIER 

BOSSIE 

BCSSIE 

B0SSIE 

S3 

s
w
 R 

R 
K 

R 

c 

rt 

- 
=A 8CS 

BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIE 

BS0SSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 

BCSSIER 
BOSSIER 

BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
BOSSIER 
WEBSTER 

. 
. 

o
o
n
 

wn
 

. 

TOTALS 

  

HOUSE (LA DISTRICT: 9 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

198C 

1864 
1213 
2189 
151C 
1962 
1730 
275 
195 
590 

1468 
2308 
1546 
1675 
1002 
3843 
4188 
1820 

 



-3
 

O
O
V
0
O
N
O
N
U
 

HS
 
W
I
N
 

LJ 

UE
 
S
N
E
 

W
N
 
=
 

. 
L] 

. 

—
 
~
 

. 

15 
16 
17 
18. 
1% 
20 

WEBSTER 

WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WE2STER 
WESSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WE2STER 
WESSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 
WEBSTER 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 10 

1-13 
1-14 

5-15 
1-16 
1-17 
1-22 
1-23 
2-5 
2-6 
2-7 
2-8 
2-10 
2-14 
2-15 
2-16 
2-18 
2-17 
2-19 
2-20 
1-11 
1-12 
1-18 
1-19, 1-21 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



Xo RTENVILLE 

=. 2TENVILIE 

3. BIENVILIE 

4. CLAIBORNE 

5. CLAIBORNE 

6. CLAIBORNE 

7. CLAIBORNE 

8. CLAIBORNE 

Se. CLAIBORNE 

10. CLAIBORNE 

3k. CLAIBORNE 

12. CLAIBORNE 

13. CLAIBORNE 

14. CLATBORNE 

is. CLAIBORNE 

18. CIAIBCRNE 

17. CTAIBORNE 

18. CZAIBCRNE 

1c. CLAIBORNE 

20. UNION 

21. UNION 

22. UNION 

23. UNION 

24. UNION 

25. UNION 

26. UNION 

27. UNION 

28. UNION 

29, UNION 

30. UNION 

31. UNION 

32, UNION 

33. UNION 

34. UNION 

35, UNION 

TOTALS    



-
h
 

Q
O
U
o
O
S
N
O
W
M
E
S
E
W
N
-
 

-3
 

-—
d 

» 

+18, 
17. 
18. 

LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
INCOLN 

LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 
LINCOLN 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 12 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

1203 
1334 
2825 
2667 
3078 
3112 
3300 
2793 
2920 
162 

5546 
2976 
2230 
1348 
66% 
828 
554 

2218 

39763 

   



HOUSE (LAD DISTRICT: 
13 

BIENVILLE 

BTENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIEMVILLE 

BIEMVILLE 

BIEMVILLE 

gTENVILLE 

gTEMVILLE 

gTENMVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

gIENVILLE 

gTENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

BIENVILLE 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

JACKSON 

WINN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINK 

WINN 

WINH 

WIMN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINN 

WINE 

. WINN   
 



HOUSE: (LAY DISTRICT: 13 (cont.) 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

48, WINN 
4G. WINN 

50. WIMN 
51. WIMNM 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE: (LA) DISTRICT: 14 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MCREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREWOUSE 
MCREHCUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 

] 
~N
 
A
N
)
 

» 

>“
 

eo
 

* 
eo
 

. 

TE
 

a
 

wm
 
b
=
 0
 

N
=
2
0
0
V
0
0
N
O
N
U
B
 
W
N
.
 

LJ 

y 
5 

7 
1 

1
 

[AV
 

J 
S
N
 

J 
a
 

a 
Y
e
 

J 
0 

+) 
w
 

1 
N
N
S
A
 
B
R
E
E
D
E
R
S
 
W
W
 

f 
1 

N
S
A
 

y 
1 

1 

TOTALS 

   



-)
 
O
V
N
I
 

W
A
R
 

LJ
 

. 
LJ
 

’ 
- 

. 
A 

LJ
 

. OUACHITA 
CUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
CUACZHITA 
OUACHITA 

OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 15 

(S
A 
RV
 

RV
, 

RV
, 

RV
, 

By 
M
u
u
 

o
o
o
~
N
O
s
 

T
I
 

Wn
 

  

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



V
O
N
 
W
H
N
 

=
 OUACHITA 

OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
QUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
QUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
QUACHITA 
QUACHIT 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRI(CT: 16 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



. 
» 

—
 

O
V
U
M
 
S
U
N
 

11. 

TOTALS 

OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
QUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 
OUACHITA 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 17 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

J
 

[ 
S2
00
 
~
N
O
N
W
N
 

wd
 

V
O
 

| -
 

W
N
W
 

] wu
 

~»
 

| 
- 

0 

W
W
W
 

U
W
W
H
W
W
W
W
W
W
 

|) 

o
 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 18 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
MOREHOUSE 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
WEST CARROLL 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 

29. FRANKLIN 
30. FRANKLIN 
31. FRANKLIN 
32. FRANKLIN 
33. RICHLAND 
34. RICHLAND 
35. RICHLAND 
36. RICHLAND 
37. RICHLAND 
38. RICHLAND 
39. RICHLAND 
40, RICHLAND 
41. RICHLAND 
42. RICHLAND 

e
e
 

1 

V
I
N
 

1 

. 
> 

eo
 

e
o
.
w
 

y 
4 

F
R
U
I
T
 

PU
RE
» 

JO
E 

J 
| 

JP
 

SC
 

Ga
l 

Wu
 

V
O
N
 

P
H
U
W
N
 

~
N
o
o
o
o
u
v
u
n
e
s
 

B
N
 

1 
d 

v
a
 

4
1
 

4 
3 

9
0
 

4 
1 
O
0
Q
0
 

W
N
 
=
|
 

h 
J 

~ 
» 

~ 
W
N
 

w
 

»
 

Ww
W 

n
N
 

] 
[] 

[} 
[] 

Ww
W 

W
 

N
N
 

~ 
> 

HW
 

o
N
 

[|] 
] 

Ww
W 

Ww
W 

J 
N
S
N
 
S
N
D
 

1
4
 

N
S
 
S
U
U
I
U
S
E
E
P
W
U
W
N
N
-
S
 

S
A
Y
 

+
0
 
1
-
0
.
 

4 
9
 

A
N
 

N
S
 

1 
S
N
S
 

N
=
2
0
0
N
O
N
W
N
 

1 
O
E
P
 
L
W
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
N
 

| 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 19 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
EAST CARROLL 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
MADISON 
RICHLAND 
RICHLAND 
RICHLAND 
RICHLAND 
RICHLAND 
TENSAS 
TENSAS 
TEMSAS 
TENSAS 
TENSAS 
TENSAS 
EAST CARROLL 

|] 
1
.
8
%
 

0
0
 

1 
| 

F
E
R
 

E
a
 
A
R
T
Y
 

M
R
T
 

RR
 

AR
 

R
E
 

0
 

EB
 
S
E
L
 

R
B
 

T
L
 

P
R
 
T
E
 

T
I
 

9
 

0
-
3
0
4
.
 

0
 

0 
1 
.
0
.
3
"
1
 

1 

. 

2 

3 

3 
4 

4 

5 

6 

é 
5 

8 

@ 
1 

2 

3 
pa 

2 

i 

7 

8 

1 

* 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 
9 

4 

5 

7 

5 

TOTALS 

  

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 20 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
CALDWELL 
FRANKLIN 

FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLI! 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
FRANKLIN 
JACKSON 
JACKSON 
JACKSON 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 

WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
WINN 
RICHLAND 
RICHLAND 

 
@
 

1
)
 ) 
JE
N,
 
Ta
 

nN
) 

= 
1 

1 
n
N
 

| 
FO

 
NP

R 
NE

P 
NO

 
NS

 
(P

E 
NE
 

J 
i 

8
 

‘
0
 

a8
 

© 
8 

0.
 

0 
.
¢
 

o
w
 

9 
e
G
 

’ 
y 
4
.
4
1
0
 

1
.
)
 

| 

N
o
u
n
 

u
N
 

0
0
0
0
 
N
C
V
T
R
 
W
N
 

"
1
 

[] 
N
S
 
W
N
 
D
A
N
N
 

jf
 
a
n
O
0
d
 

|] 
"
n
y
 
N
=
)
 

1
9
 

) 
WR
N 

= 
d
N
 

1] 
2 
: 
4 

> 
6 
74 

8 

4 
1 

3 
3 
4 

Vg 

6 
6 
7 
8 
8 
1 
y 
4 
1 
5 
7 

> 
2 

7
)
 

1 
D
A
 
A
R
N
E
 

S
W
A
N
S
 

Nh
 

$
1
3
1
 

3-
1 

‘
1
 .
 

nN
 | ~ 

U
T
I
 

NN
 
NN
 
E
W
 

BE
N 

) 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 21 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CATAHOULA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
CONCORDIA 
TENSAS 
LA SALLE 
LA SALLE 

1 
1 

0
 

8
 

9
 

@
 

Si
 

I 
La

e 
Sa
 
He
 

hl
 nN
 | Ww
 

V
O
N
 

B
U
N
 

'. 
2 

1 
Jo
l)
 

D
S
D
N
A
 

W
N
N
D
N
N
O
U
V
M
T
E
A
 
W
N
 

A
N
D
 

W
N
O
S
O
 
N
Y
S
 
D
W
N
 

S
D
N
 

R
N
 
=
=
 

A 
J 

TE
 
T
E
}
 

SR 

EE
 

J 

0
 

W
 

1
1
 

Ww
 

NN
 

! 
4 

$
0
.
0
.
 

4.
0 

01 
0 

0 
3-

90
. 

0.
9 

0.
0 

3%
) 

.
:
 

Ww
W 1 Ww
 

N
=
s
o
u
u
u
n
u
v
u
u
u
U
L
L
L
U
L
N
E
®
E
 

E
P
R
 

P
U
N
N
S
D
S
 

S
D
D
 
O
D
W
O
O
N
O
O
U
V
I
W
V
I
E
 

B
R
I
N
N
 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE CLA) DISTRICT: 22 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES. 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

"NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

NATCHITOCHES 

. NATCHITOCHES 

. 
. 

A 
a
)
 

W
N
 

1 

0
 
00
 

ON
 

P 

JT
 

UT
 

SE
E 

GE
 

GPO
 

St
 

PE
 

SP
 

| 

nN
 

oO
 

V
o
o
r
 

H
U
W
N
 

1 
3 

1 
W
N
 

0
0
 
~
N
W
=
 

y 
W
H
H
W
W
N
N
N
D
N
 

i 
[ 

nN
 
=
~
 
O
B
 

W
W
 

4
 

3
9
 

4 

4-5 
4-6 
1-5 
1-7 
2-2 
3-5 
be3 1 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT Q. 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 

DE SOTO 
DE SOTO 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 
RED RIVER 

SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 

SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 

SABINE 
SABINE 
SABINE 

V
o
~
N
o
w
u
m
b
H
s
u
U
n
N
S
 

TOTALS 

   



V
o
o
~
N
o
u
n
m
P
h
u
W
N
 =
 

19 

. 
. 

’ 
LJ 

. 
LJ

 
. 

LJ GRANT 
GRANT 
GRANT 
GRANT 
GRANT 
SRANT 
GRANT 
GRANT 
LA SALLE 
LA SALLE 
1A SALLE 
LA SALLE 
LA SALLE 
LA SALLE 
LA SALLE 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 

TOTALS 

ES 
vy 

m
e
w
n
 
=
 

N 

1 
| 

PA
 

EL
 
J 

EP
L 

TL
 

| 
J
U
 

N
N
N
 

N
N
 

V
1
 
9
 

Y 
3 

1 
3 

N
h
 

y 
y-
.5
 

3
0
 

| 
I)
 

3 
od
 

vd
 

«3
 

wd
 
w
b
w
d
 

od
 

nd
 

o
o
l
 

| Ww
 | 

N
N
 

' 
(0

 | 
3
%
 

3
%
 

YY
 
N
.
Y
 

Mw
 

N 

N
W
O
V
0
O
~
N
O
U
N
 

HS
 
W
O
N
 

| 
N
N
N
 
N
N
 

A
2
0
0
 
0
V
O
N
O
W
M
P
A
E
W
O
N
G
W
U
M
 

H
E
W
N
 

| 

HOUSE (LAY DISTRICT: 24 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 25 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

RAPIDES 

RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 

RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 

V
o
o
o
~
N
o
o
w
u
d
H
u
W
n
 =
 

TOTALS 

   



-
 

O
V
O
 
~
N
O
C
U
V
M
E
W
N
-
 

LJ 

-
3
 

-
 

12% 
33. 
14, 
1S. 
16, 
17. 

+38, 
10, 
20. 
2%. 

RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDE 
RAPIDE 
RAPIDE 
RAPIDE 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 

5 
S 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 26 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1 
V
o
o
O
~
N
O
U
I
L
E
W
N
 =
 

“3
 
e
d
d
 
D
I
O
 

O
0
0
 

O0
0 

OV
 
O
0
0
 

O
0
0
 

C
0
Q
0
 

[] 
| 0
 

11-9-2,11-3=2,11=8 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 28 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 

V
O
N
 

P
W
N
 

=
 

e
i
s
 

e
e
l
.
 

-2
 

o
 

* 

b
d
 

-
 

L} 

W
A
N
 

D
S
W
D
 

S
N
 

| 
N
M
N
M
O
K
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
 

c
o
o
n
 

S
E
S
W
 

N
 

0
 

0 
8
 

0 

I 
P
o
 

1
.
9
 

9 
UI 

| 

TCTALS 

   



BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
RAPIDES 
RAPIDES 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 
VERNON 

V
O
I
 

H
U
W
N
 

=
 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 29 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1.
 

4.
.4
 

1
 

9 
P
W
N
 

N
=
 

W
N
 

SA
 
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
 

1 
y 

4 

| 
~N
 

| 
N
N
 

H
N
 | 

o
n
 

00
 

ON
 

UT
 

N
I
N
)
 

=)
 

=d
 

cd
 

od
 

od
 

cd
 

3 

1 
JT
 

N
E
 

Ga
r 

Wp
 

NV
, 

Jo
 

lo
 

NV
 

| 

oO
 | 

I
N
 

00
 
Os
 
N
I
N
N
 

| 
N
N
W
 

NY
 

} Bie 
Da

d.
 

o
o
n
 
N
 

|] 
W
H
 

W
n
i
I
N
W
 

v
y
)
 

A) 0 
8 | 

* 
N
V
 

Y
Y
 

| ' 

A
Y
 

| 

   



BEAUREGARD 

BEAUREGARD 

BEAUREGARD 

BEAUREGARD 

SEAUREGARD 

BEAUREGARD 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

VERNON 

wm
 
H
W
 

«
9
.
0
8
0
 

0
 

00
 

~N
 

On
 

F
R
E
D
 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 30 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 

A
E
 
U
W
W
U
H
U
W
U
 

$
v
 

1
1
 

1
)
 

3
 

N
S
O
 

E
W
N
 

| 
1 i 

1 
N
N
N
 

~
~
 E
 

1 
N
S
W
 

| W
 

~
~
 

4
.
)
 

o
w
n
 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 31 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
ALLEN 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
BEAUREGARD 
SEAUREGARD 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 

1
9
 

1 1 (g]
 

s
e
 

| 

| (ge
) 

| o
 

o
o
n
 

u
n
N
 

=>
 

U
V
I
W
N
 

= 
B
u
 

b
=
 
N
P
 

K 
2 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
5 

.5 
5 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
1 
2 
3 1 

1 
A
D
D
N
 

0
 

0
0
 

T
E
 
S
O
 

I
~
 

S
A
O
 

~
N
~
N
O
W
V
M
S
S
N
 

Ss
 

[] 
| 

N
S
N
 

D
S
N
 
=
 

}
-
9
 

4 
+ 

V
1
 

c
o
o
n
 

\
n
 

[|] 

O
N
P
U
W
N
=
2
2
E
S
E
W
N
 =
 

TOTALS 

   



V
O
N
 

H
N
 

2 CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIED . 
CALCASIEUY 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEY 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEY 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEzU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 32 

TOTAL J 
POPULATION 

$
V
 

3 
v
0
 

o
u
n
 

nN
 

Y
C
 

3
-
9
 

45
.0
 

3
.
9
9
 

H
W
 

00
 

ON
 

=
 

4-1 
4-2 
4=1 
4=1 
Pam 
7-1 
7-2 
7-3 
7-5 
4-3 
4-4 
4-5 
4-1 
4-1 
4-1 
L=6 
4=7 
4-8 
4-1 
4=1 
6-5 
6-6 
7-4 
7-6 
7-7 1 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 33 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

31359 
1345 
2207 
1156 
GES 
93% 
B94 
900 

2181 
2160 
3452 
757 

2415 
1701 
1520 
1542 

CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEUL. 
CALCASIEL 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEV 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEY 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 

vw
 
o
w
 

i
V
 

1
 

S
m
o
 

BE
 
W
N
 

o
o
~
N
O
W
M
E
U
W
N
=
 

“
w
e
 

9
.
9
 

9
8
 

1 

n
N
 
-
2
0
 

W
W
U
W
W
W
W
W
R
H
W
U
W
W
W
 

1 
1 

9 
[| 

W
N
W
 

I O
O
0
O
~
N
O
W
 

| 
N
N
N
 = 

N
 

~N
 
O
r
n
 

00
 

=
 

W
H
 
W
U
L
W
W
U
W
W
W
 

| 

TOTALS 

   



0 
0
0
~
N
O
W
n
 

HS
 
W
N
 

=
 CALCASIEU 

CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASZIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASZIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 

TOTALS 

3-8 
3-52 
3-14 
3-15 
3-18 
3-10 
3-20 
3-21 
3-22 
3-34 
4-10 
1-1 
1-2A,1-28,1-2¢C 
3-35 
3-23 
4-9 
4-17 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 34 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 35 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 2-37A,3-378 

CALCASIEU 38A,3-38B 

CAMERON 
CAMERON 
CAMERON 
CAMERON 

12. CAMERON 
13. CAMERON 
14. CAMERON 

15. CAMERON 

-
—
 

O
V
O
O
~
N
O
-
U
W
M
E
S
W
N
 =
 

« 
eo 

e 
3 

-
3
 

Ps
) 

JC
 

RE
 

C
S
 

RN
Y 

JY
 

J
Y
 

LY n
 1 ~N
 

~ 
~ 

~~
 

Ww
 1 

n
N
 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 36 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

808 
475 
4856 

3280 
1280 
157 
2604 
2131 
2429 
2345 
2135 
335 
1281 
1387 

1014 
1222 

CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEU 
CALCASIEY 
CALCASIE 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 

DAVIS 
DAVIS 
DAVIS 
DAVIS 33s 

DAVIS 490 

DAVIS 2302 

DAVIS 182 

DAVIS 707 

JEFFERSON DAVIS 1447 

JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 
JEFFERSON DAVIS 

V
o
~
N
o
w
n
m
 

H
E
W
N
 

> 
. 

LJ 

S
3
0
0
 

N
O
W
N
P
H
W
S
2
0
0
0
N
N
N
 

Q
C
 

1
)
 

¢ 
1 

3
-
0
}
 

FO
R 

J 
A 

J 
)Y 

J 
YE

 
Qi
 

Nu
t 

Np
 

St
 
WC

 
Sy 

PY 
J 

J 
SR 

VY 
J 

AV 
IE

 

W
N
 

JE 
JE 
JE? 
JE 
JE 

TOTALS 

   



ST, 
57. 
ST, 
57: 
37. 
ST. 
SY. 
ST. 
ST. 

10. 871. 
4%. ST. 
12. 57. 
42, st. 
14. 8%. 

£. 257, 
"14, ST, 
17..'ST. 
18. 57. 
20, 'sY. 
20. 'ST. 
244. ST. 
22. .ST. 
23. 'sT. 
24. $7. 
25. ST. 
26, SY. 
27. ST. 
28, ST. 
29,871, 

V
0
 

F
N
S
 

TOTALS 

LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY 
LANDRY RE

C 
R
Y
E
E
 

a 
 a
l 

SW
 

[ 
TE
 

$ 
1 

e
d
a
d
 

00
 
N
N
N
 

JET
 Q

UE
 

SP
IT
 
QU
T 

SK
 
WP
 

SP
 

SP
 

SP
Y 

| 
| —-
 

No
 

1
 

"
1
1
 

nN
 
=
O
 H 

D
W
A
I
N
 

-
 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 3% 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 472 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETT 
LAFAYETT 
LAFAYETT 
LAFAYETT 
LAFAYETT 

oy 
ov 
> 

' 
O
R
A
X
R
I
M
T
R
L
-
.
.
O
Z
I
M
M
 

X
C
 

| 
V
I
S
 
B
N
W
 

S
U
S
 
W
S
 

V
O
N
 

HS
 
W
N
 

. 
= 

LAFAYET 
LAFAYET 
LAFAYET LA

IR
 

SB
E 

BR
 

BE
 

EE
 
AE

 
S
V
,
 

IR
V,
 

I 
U 

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
 

TOTALS 

   



-
—
 

e
d
 

=
 

e
d
 

Dd
 

F
P
U
W
N
S
O
O
V
O
O
N
O
W
U
M
B
E
U
W
N
S
 

9
 

0 
9 

8 
e_ 

0 
6 

C
6
0
 

LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 

LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 

TOTALS 

HOUSE 

wn
 

Ul
 

=
 

d 

1 
T
T
 

W
O
W
L
W
W
D
m
 

| 

| 1 
F
P
U
W
H
N
U
W
N
 =
 

(
R
V
R
 

RV
I 
R
V
R
,
 

RV
, 

RV
, 

RV
, 

] 
2
T
T
I
T
O
O
H
O
O
D
O
Z
 ZZ
 

| 
A
A
L
S
 

U
W
N
=
2
N
 

= 

(LAY DISTRICT: 43 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 44 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 
LAFAYETTE 

0
0
0
 

. 

P
U
W
N
E
W
H
U
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
-
S
S
 

2
D
.
 

H 
F
E
 
M
r
E
O
O
H
H
H
R
 

I
T
I
 

T
T
 
n
n
m
M
m
o
o
o
o
O
o
m
@
 

] 
P
U
N
E
 
D
S
U
W
S
D
S
U
W
N
S
D
S
W
N
W
N
 
S
H
W
E
 
=
 

i
E
 

he
, 

GE
 

O0
0 

HE
 

$f
 

1 
9 

49 
4
}
 

TOTALS 

   



V
O
N
 

W
N
-
 JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

ST, 
ST. 
ST. 
St. 
ST. 
ST. 

St. 

TOTALS 

CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 55 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1
 

1
)
 

3
-
1
4
 

W
N
 

D
S
H
 

N
 

am
 

>»
 

o
v
 

u
v
u
n
i
u
i
u
n
 

un
 

   



ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 

,. ST, 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 

"ST. 

-
 

A
O
0
V
o
O
N
O
W
N
 
E
W
N
 

—_
 

e
d
 

=
)
 

a
d
 

e
d
 

Dd
 
N
Y
 

o
N
 P
H 
W
N
 

P
E
E
 

T
R
 

Re
 

Sa
 

TOTALS 

CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
CHARLES 
JAMES 
JAMES 
JAMES 
JAMES 
JAMES 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 
JOHN 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 56 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

c
o
o
n
 
W
 

0
:
4
 

3
.
4
1
.
1
3
 
H
N
 

8 
4 

| 
B
a
d
 

ed
 

ad
 

wd
 
a
m
d
 

N
N
 

V
I
N
)
 

1 
d
D
 
N
O
W
M
P
W
W
W
W
N
 

1 
- 

0
 | 

-
 

   



-
 

O
W
V
o
O
~
N
O
N
U
L
 
I
W
I
N
 

=
 

-
3
 

-
—
 

- 

1%. 
20, 
21. 
22. 
23, 
24. 
25. 

ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JAMES 
ST. JOHN 
ST. JOHN 
ST. JOHN 

TOTALS 

HOUSE: CLAY DISTRICT: 37 

nN
 

=
 

u
u
m
 

b
s
o
 
W
W
N
N
N
 

N
I
N
 

N
a
a
n
 e
B
 

D
l
 

E
Y
 

F
t
 

1 
a
E
 

y
f
)
 

N
S
F
W
 

0 
0 

n
N
 

O
P
R
W
S
A
N
O
V
I
 
B
E
N
 

W
N
 =
 

1 

1 

1 

2 
1 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE CLA) DISTRICT: 58 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ASCENSION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
ST. CHARLES 
ST. THARLES 
ST. CHARLES 
ST. CHARLES 
5T. CHARLES 
ST. CHARLES 
ST. JAMES 

. 
0 

‘
0
 

‘y
v.

 
8 

¢ 
¢ 

0 
# 

T
4
3
4
9
 

1 
4 

4
9
 

1 

-
 

O
Q
O
O
U
V
o
O
N
O
W
U
M
 
H
N
N
 

: 
4 

1
.
4
 

D
A
N
S
 

U
e
 

A
N
I
D
 
N
A
N
 

S
N
 

= 
ad
 
d
N
)
 

= 
PN
) 
=
 

N
N
N
 

H
U
N
 

N
T
S
 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 59 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 
LIVINGSTON 

2%. LIVINGSTON 
22, LIVINGSTON 

23, TANGIPAHOA 

1
.
4
 

1 
1
1
1
 

V
o
 
~
N
O
N
E
H
E
W
H
N
 

« 
® 

we 
wu 

@ 

i 
RL
 

A 

i 
Ba
 

] 
| 
S
W
S
 

W
N
 
S
N
 
A
N
 

-
>
 

N
A
R
S
 

S
B
b
 
U
U
W
 

N
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
V
I
V
E
E
S
 

B
S
S
 

S
A
O
 
V
N
I
U
V
I
V
T
O
O
O
W
W
S
N
N
O
O
U
V
W
A
N
S
 

P
W
N
S
 

~N
 

oO
 

. TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 60 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ASCENSION 
ASCENSION 
ASSUMPTION 
ASSUMPTION 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 

IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 
IBERVILLE 

WEST BATON ROUGE 

V
O
N
 

W
E
N
 

v
0
 

0
»
 

$
3
 

i 

1
1
 

1 
1 

W
a
n
 

“
N
o
o
o
 

N
O
O
O
 

| 
M
M
M
 

o
O
o
o
W
W
D
n
 

S
n
 
W
W
 

4 

7 
S=F-5 
S=3=1 
G=5=2 
1=A-1 
1=A=3 
1=A~2 
2-8-1 
2-B~2 
2~B=6 
7-F-2 
8-F-6 
Sef? 
T=1 

TOTALS 

   



. 
. 

LJ
 

LJ
 

. 

-3
 
O
Q
O
U
o
O
S
N
O
W
V
M
E
H
E
U
W
N
 =
 

WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 
WEST 

28. MEST 

TOTALS 

POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE COU 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 
POINTE 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 

COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 

— 
- 
[=p 

COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 
COUPEE 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE DISTRICT: 67 kG 

1-4 
4 

$ 
O
H
 

] 
] 

N
=
 

od
 

N
N
)
 

A
T
U
 

= 
ed
 

A
N
)
 
e
d
a
d
 
W
N
)
 

= 
y 

4 
1 

3 
1 

“
A
U
T
 

ES
 

e
d
 
S
R
N
)
 

=
 

RN
) 

P
U
W
U
H
W
S
N
O
U
W
N
W
W
N
N
S
S
O
 

P
N
 
O
O
V
O
W
H
O
N
O
U
I
U
V
N
I
N
-
 

| 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 62 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

EAST FELICTIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 

EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 
EAST FELICIANA 

10. EAST FELICIANA 
17. EAST FELICIANA 
12. EAST FELICIANA 

#13, EAST FELICIANA 
1 14, EAST FELICIANA 
$1.15. EAST 'FELICIANA 
- 16, EAST PELICIANA 

17. ST. HELENA 
78. ST. HELENA 
19. ST. HELENA 
20, ST, HELENA 
21. ST. HELENA 
22, ST. HELENA 

- 23, WEST FELICIANA 
24, WEST FELICIANA 
25, WEST FELICIANA 
26. WEST FELICIANA 
27, WEST FELICIANA 
28. WEST FELICIANA 
29. WEST FELICIANA 
30. WEST FELICIANA 
37. WEST FELICIANA 
32. WEST FELICIANA 

V
O
N
 

I
N
N
 

YR 
RS 

a 
i 

LY
 

§ 
0
-
0
 

4 
3 

0 
80 

4 
0 

4 
W
N
 

a
d
 

N
N
 

S
S
N
)
 

od
 
d
e
d
 

ad
 

cd
 

A 
N
I
N
)
 

= 
= 

od
 

ad
 

NJ
 

=D
 

M
U
M
 
B
U
W
U
W
W
H
N
N
-
S
 

N
E
S
E
 
W
N
E
N
P
O
O
N
O
 

B
W
,
 

} 

TOTALS 

   



EAST 

EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

V
O
N
 

W
N
 

TOTALS 

BATON 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
SATON 
BATON 

ROUGE 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 63 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 64 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

Q
O
U
o
O
N
O
W
V
N
E
H
E
U
W
N
 

e
e
 

i 
} 

   



V
O
N
 

UV 
HS 
W
N
 
=
 

. 

-4
 

Oo
 

-)
 

>»
 

© [7%
] 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 

HOUSE CLA) DISTRICT: 65 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



EAST 
EAST 

EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

10. EAST 
11. EAST 
12. EAST 
13. EAST 
14. EAST 
35. EAST 
16. EAST 

+37, EAST 
18. EAST 
19+ EAST 
20, EAST 

V
O
 
~
N
O
N
U
I
L
P
 

W
N
 

=
 

. 

TOTALS 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
S3ATON 
BATON 
BATCN 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 66 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

" EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

v
o
o
~
N
o
u
n
b
s
W
w
W
N
 =
 

. 

TOTALS 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
ROUGE 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 

HOUSE CLAY DISTRICT: 67 

| 
$
9
1
 

3 
D
a
u
 

S
W
 

4 
J
 
N
S
 

| 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

NV
 
0
0
~
N
O
U
V
N
 
H
W
S
 

. 

F
R
 

SE
 

N
N
 
S
O
 

i
 

o
~
N
o
O
w
V
M
E
H
E
W
N
-
=
2
O
 

8 
O 

9 
@ 

e
a
e
 

9 
9 

19. 

TOTALS 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE (LA2 DISTRICT: 68 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



EAST 

EAST - 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

. EAST 
10. EAST 
37. EAST 
22. EAST 
13. EASY 
14. EAST 

-¥5. EAST 

NO
 

CO
 
N
O
N
 
F
I
N
N
 

LJ 

TOTALS 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
3ATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
SATON 
BATON 
BATON 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 6% 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 70 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

o
o
~
N
O
-
U
n
N
 

HH
 
W
H
N
 

=
 

LJ 

   



EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 
EAST 

~~
) 

O
V
N
I
 

L
I
N
)
 

. 

-
—
 

e
d
 

a
d
 

a
d
 

SH
S 
U
W
H
N
 

0 
e
e
 

TOTALS 

BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATON 
BATCN 
BATON 
BATON 

ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 
ROUGE 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 71 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



CLA) DISTRICT: 72 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 

LIVINGSTON. 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

LIVINGSTON 

N
R
 

= 
= 

d
d
 

e
d
d
 

] w
n
 

| 

S
U
N
 
=
 

E
R
U
W
W
W
N
R
O
N
N
N
N
 

W
-
=
2
W
N
-
0
0
 W
U 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 73 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ST. HELENA 
ST. HELENA 

ST. HELENA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHCA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHCA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 

11. TANGIPAHOA 
12. TANGIPAHCA 
13. TANGIPAHOA 
14. TANGIPAHOA 
15. TANGIPAHOA 

16. TANGIPAHOA 
17. TANGIPAHOA 
18. TANGIPAHOA 
19. TANGIPAHOA 
20. TANGIPAHOA 
21. TANGIPAHOA 
22. TANGIPAHOA 
23, TANGIPAHOA 
24, TANGIPAHOA 
25, TANGIPAHOA 
26. TANGIPAHOA 
27. TANGIPAHOA 
28. TANGIPAHOA 
29. TANGIPAHOA 
30. TANGIPAHOA 
37. WASHINGTON 

' 
4 

~~
 

O
V
O
 

W
N
H
N
N
 

=
 

i 
4
.
9
 19

 
I 

1 
3
.
1
 

1 
12 

4 
0 

2
)
 

L 
) 

N
o
o
 

C
C
O
C
P
P
V
M
T
U
L
I
T
E
R
E
 

E
E
E
 

ER
E 
W
H
N
U
W
U
H
U
W
U
W
W
N
N
N
S
D
 

W
Y
N
N
 

| 
S
O
N
N
E
 

W
S
D
S
U
I
W
N
L
G
S
F
 
W
A
N
S
 
N
O
O
N
E
 
W
N
D
U
 

W
-
S
N
 

1 
4 

TOTALS 

   



LIVINGSTON 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 
TANGIPAHOA 

. 
. 

. 
- 

[] 
* 

L] 
. 

[] 
. 

4 

W
I
N
N
»
 
O
0
0
 

N
O
W
U
M
 

SH
 
W
N
 

TOTALS 

9° 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 74 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

0 
1-8 

2
-
1
 

9 
§ 

A
 

a 
Be

s 
r
m
 

J 
TE

 
a 

be
 

»
 

O
U
V
I
U
W
N
-
2
0
O
 

| 
x 

n
 

00
 
N
N
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
O
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
 

] 
S
0
0
0
 

D
P
 
W
N
 

A
N
 

= 
d
e
d
 

cd
 
a
d
d
 

= 
ON

 
UT

 
ON

 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 76 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON 

c
o
~
N
O
N
N
 
S
H
W
R
S
 

L] 
. 

* 
. 

LJ
 

. 
. 

. 

Me 
1
 

1 
N
=
 

0
=
2
V
U
W
N
 

=
 

-
 

0
 

) 
~
N
~
N
u
n
E
s
E
P
S
r
P
O
0
0
O
W
W
W
 

| 

J
C
I
 
P
C
 

JP
N 

P
O
 
S
N
 

N
O
 

| 
[| 

c
o
~
N
O
N
W
V
M
 
E
W
N
 

TOTALS 

   



JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

ERSON FF 
FF 
FF 

ROUSE (LA) DISTRILY: 7% 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



V
o
O
~
N
O
W
U
M
 
E
W
N
 

= 
. 

. 

W
N
 

0
 

0 
e
e
.
 

23. 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 80 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

a 
Ba

 

> 

1 
y
o
 

+
8
 

0 

T
o
m
m
M
m
o
o
 >
 

O
O
V
O
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
0
O
O
V
O
0
O
0
O
0
 

! 
W
W
L
U
L
H
W
W
W
H
W
W
W
H
W
H
N
N
 

| Ww
 

(a)
 

     



 ) 

. 
S
2
0
V
v
V
o
e
e
~
N
O
U
V
M
P
r
W
N
-
 

. 

h
d
 

w
n
 . 

14. 
15, 

44, 
17. 
18, 
19. 
20. 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
EFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 81 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



V
O
N
 

E
W
N
 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRI(T: 82 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



o
O
o
 

U
W
N
 

« 
a 

-—
) 

oO
 

. 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 83 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



V
O
N
 

BH
 
W
N
 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 84 

) 
s
u
n
 

' 
1
.
4
 

S
2
0
0
 

~
N
O
N
W
 

1 
00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

00
 

O0
0 

|} 

  

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 85 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

. 
. 

1 

. 1 

N
O
O
N
 

H
N
N
 

= 

N
A
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
N
A
N
Y
 

1 
S
S
N
S
 

U
W
N
D
 

TOTALS. 

   



NV
 
O
0
O
N
O
N
U
 

W
N
 

=
 

es 
eo 

. 
. 

« 
® 

RA JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 86 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



J O
V
N
I
 
H
W
 

. 

-3
 

-d
 

12. 

FFERSON 

rFERSON 
FFERSON 
FFERSON 
FFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

T
m
i
m
 
m
m
 

C
C
.
 
C
C
.
 

C.
 

Ld
 - 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 87 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

E
w
 

ae
 
E
e
 

> 

13 
1.1 

| 
=
 
V
V
 
N
~
N
~
N
O
U
V
I
U
N
I
 

B
W
 

o
O
 

E
R
O
 

AE
 
AE
 

IE
 

IE
 

RE
 

A
E
 

aE
 

A 

) 

o
>
»
 

  TE TT TT  



rl 
yi CLA) DISTRICT: 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
EFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 
JEFFERSON 

c
o
~
N
o
U
n
 
H
U
N
 

. 

v
9
 

4
:
1
 

1 
0
0
 

| 

N
=
 
N
O
O
W
M
H
A
W
N
=
N
 
=
 

P
P
 
U
W
U
H
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
N
N
 =
 

i 

TOTALS 

   



JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

JEFFERSON 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 

. 
. 

’ 
. 

A 
o
N
 

H
U
W
N
 

=
 

TOTALS 

   



n
N
 

—
-
 

-3
 

o
w
0
o
o
~
N
O
o
U
V
 

H
W
 

25 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLENAS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LAD DISTRICT: 50 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 

-——— a — — ————— 

38557 

   



V
o
O
~
N
o
W
n
H
E
U
W
N
=
S
 ORLEANS 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

AL 
POPULATION 

   



ouse (LA) pisTRIcT@fp2 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
‘ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

10. ORLEANS 
11. ORLEANS 
12. ORLEANS 
13, ORLEANS 
14. ORLEANS 
15. ORLEANS 
16. ORLEANS 
17. ORLEANS 

"18. ORLEANS 
19. ORLEANS 
20. ORLEANS 
21. ORLEANS 
22. ORLEANS 
23. ORLEANS 
24. ORLEANS 
25. ORLEANS 
26. ORLEANS 
27. ORLEANS 
28. ORLEANS 
29. ORLEANS 
30. ORLEANS 
27. ORLEANS 
32. ORLEANS 
33. ORLEANS 
34. ORLEANS 
35. ORLEANS 
36. ORLEANS 
37. ORLEANS 
38. ORLEANS 

TOTALS _ 

   



HOUSE (LA) prsTrIcT@P3 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

ORLEANS 
840 

ORLEANS 
1056 

ORLEANS 
1003 

ORLEANS 
1088 

ORLEANS 
909% 

ORLEANS 
433 

ORLEANS 
815 

ORLEANS 
1282 

ORLEANS : 1200 

ORLEANS 
868 

ORLEANS 
1286 

ORLEANS : : 1400 

ORLEANS 
762 

ORLEANS 
953 

ORLEANS 
805 

ORLEANS 
1017 

ORLEANS 
609 

ORLEANS 
333 

ORLEANS 
1231 

ORLEANS 
948 

. ORLEANS 
1285 

ORLEANS 
1357 

ORLEANS 
890 

ORLEANS 
837 

ORLEANS 
984 

ORLEANS 
1074 

ORLEANS 
796 

ORLEANS 
1314 

ORLEANS 
1074 

ORLEANS 
1190 

ORLEANS: 
1004 

ORLEANS 
1016 

ORLEANS 
841 

ORLEANS 
: 1022 

ORLEANS 
1222 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

39. ORLEANS 

o
o
~
N
o
w
u
n
m
e
u
N
n
=
 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) p1sTHT: 94 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

o
N
 
W
N
 

-
 

3
 

0
 

« 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

27. ORLEANS 
28. ORLEANS 
TOTALS   

   



« 
eo 

eo 
3 

V
O
 
~
N
O
W
M
E
S
E
 

W
N
 

=
 

26, 
2’. 
28, 
29. 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
‘ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

- ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

TOTALS 

SD
 
W
W
U
W
W
W
H
W
A
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
D
N
N
 

S
D
 
D
D
 

| 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 95 

J 
T
1
4
0
0
 

4 
4
0
0
3
 

s
o
o
s
 

W
-
=
2
2
N
N
O
U
B
T
H
A
 
W
N
T
 

sa
 

8 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

   



. 
. 

. 
. 

» 
. 

. 
» 

V
O
N
 

E
H
U
W
N
 

= 
-
3
 

=
D
 

-
»
 

O
O
 

LJ 
. 

27. 

2%. 
30. 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: EI 

| 
- 

= 
0
0
0
0
 

I
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
O
O
 

| 

TOTALS 

POPULATION 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 98 ® 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

ORELANS 
783 

ORLEANS 
586 

ORLEANS 
602 

ORLEANS 
792 

ORLEANS 
579 

ORLENAS 
1113 

ORLEANS 
600 

. ORLEANS 
668 

ORLEANS 
615 

ORLEANS 
992 

ORLEANS 
744 

ORLEANS 
738 

ORLEANS 
956 

ORLEANS 
292 

ORLEANS 
: : 906 

ORLEANS 
850 

ORLEANS 
750 

ORLEANS 
875 

ORLEANS 
850 

ORLEANS 
614 

ORLEANS 
691 

ORLEANS 
657 

ORLEANS 
206 

ORLEANS : 
LBS 

ORLEANS 
1145 

ORCEANS 
1834 

ORLEANS 
1485 

ORLEANS 
1710 

ORLEANS 
437 

ORLEANS 
714 

ORLEANS 
884 

ORLEANS 
654 

ORLEANS 
1065 

ORLEANS 
1444 

ORLEANS 
992 

ORLEANS 
1202 

ORLEANS 
1177 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

40, ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

42. ORLEANS 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 99 a 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

- 
1980 

ORLEANS 
917 

ORLEANS 
1056 

ORLEANS 
2203 

ORLEANS 
917 

ORLEANS 
2114 

ORLEANS 
1923 

ORLEANS 
1912 

ORLEANS 
1824 

ORLEANS 
2403 

10. ORLEANS 
2400 

11. ORLEANS 
4214 

12. ORLEANS 
1455 

13. ORLEANS 
1187 

14, ORLEANS 
4352 

15. ORLEANS 

16. ORLEANS 
17. ORLEANS 
18. ORLEANS 

19. ORLEANS 

V
o
~
N
O
U
V
N
H
E
U
W
N
=
S
 

. 

TOTALS 

   



-
 
O
v
o
 W
N
 

=
 

LJ 

-
—
 

-
3
 

. 
w 

JIE
 
NE
 
N
Y
 

H
W
 

. 

19, 
20. 
21. 
22, 

ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 
ORLEANS 

TOTALS 

HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 100 » 

TOTAL 

POPULATION 
1980 

2514 
1757 
3066 
2566 
1096 
706 
824 

1228 
705 

1577 
1029 
921 

2031 
1237 
880 

1186 
923 

12432 
1238 
3140 
7506 
1506 

38879 

   



@ ouse wn prstrICT: 101 @) 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

ORLEANS 1239 

ORLEANS 1476 

ORLEANS 1415 

ORLEANS 1203 

ORLEANS 1234 

ORLEANS . 1596 

ORLEANS 2086 

ORLEANS 955 

ORLEANS 936 

1C. ORLEANS 1252 

11. ORLEANS : 1164 

12. ORLEANS 1155 

13. ORLEANS 1613 

14. ORLEANS 569 

15. ORLEANS 1743 

16. ORLEANS 1659 

17. ORLEANS 1362 

-18. ORLEANS 1162 

19. ORLEANS 1204 

20. ORLEANS 1632 

21. ORLEANS 902 

22, ORLEANS 971 

23, ORLEANS 
24. ORLEANS 
25, ORLEANS 
26. ORLEANS 
27. ORLEANS 

V
o
 
~
N
O
W
U
N
E
S
H
U
W
N
 2
 

. 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 102 » 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

ORLEANS 
1679 

ORLEANS 
1441 

ORLEANS 
1417 

ORLEANS 
1447 

ORLEANS 
1926 

ORLEANS 
1573 

ORLEANS 
2167 

ORLEAMS 
1460 

ORLEANS 
1793 

ORLEANS 
1653 

ORLEANS 
1945 

ORLEAMS 
1948 

ORLEANS 
1721 

ORLEANS & 1322 

ORLEANS 
"1533 

ORLEANS 
837 

ORLEANS 
1141 

ORLEANS 
18032 

ORLEANS 
1561 

ORLEANS 
1927 

ORLEANS . 3707 

ORLEANS 
2101 

ORLEANS 
1792 

ORLEANS 
1226 

V
o
o
~
N
o
O
W
n
M
E
W
N
=
 

LJ 

TOTALS 
40349 

   



ST. 
S57. 
ST. 
ST. 

ST. 
SY. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
57. 
ST. 

- 
ie 

SY. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 
ST. 

. 
. 

. 
o
N
 

H
U
W
N
 

. 

TOTALS 

BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERMARD 
BERNARD 
BERMARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 
BERMARD 
BERNARD 
BERNARD 

A HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 103 » 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

1565 
1165 
1092 
2649 
1047 
835 

2861 
2525 
3090 
1425 
1773 
1809 
1435 
1813 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTPICT: 104 

TOTAL 
POPULATIOM 

1980 
a A tr a te 

JEFFERSON ~ 6065 
JEFFERSON 6350 
PLAQUEMINES 828 
PLAQUEMINES 3102 
ST. BEPNARD LPT 
ST. BERNARD i : 4585 
ST. BERNARD 1250 
ST. BERNARD 
ST. BERMARD 
ST. BERNARD 
ST. BERNARD 
ST. BERNARD 

N
N
O
 
W
N
 

. 

—
d
 

w
d
 

—d
 

N
O
 

«
o
v
 a
 

TOTALS 

   



HOUSE (LA) DISTRICT: 105 » 

TOTAL 
POPULATION 

1980 

JEFFERSON 4480 
JEFFERSOM 1993 

JEFFERSON 5277 

JEFFERSON 3487 

PLAGUEMINES 733 

PLAQUEMINES 1142 
PLAQUEMINES 139 

PLAQUEMINES 2792 

PLAGUEMINES 3878 

PLAQUEMINES 1864 

PLAQUEMINES 1218 

PLAGUEMINES o70 
PLAQUEMINES : 
PLAQUEMINES 
ST. BERNARD 
ST. BERNARD 
ST. BERNARD 

=
 

O
V
O
N
O
W
U
M
P
E
W
N
=
 

. 

TOTALS 

   



% SUMMARY SHEET : 

House District 1980 “% Black » Relative 

# Population Population Deviation 

38733 
225 

39345 
1.73 

39634 
1.7 

40408 
.92 

39538 
1.25 

38926 
2.78 

S38753 
5e2 

41327 
3.22 

41216 
2.% 

41809 
4 42 

41866 
4.57 

39763 
.69 

40740 
¢ Birds 

40489 
1.33 

40619 
1.45 

40896 
2.14 

39697 
25 

42201 
5.40 

42294 
5.64 

38318 
4.30 

39347 
-1.73 

39863 
yA 

383234 
C= 4,26 

39409 
1.57 

40542 
1.26 

39512 
1.3) 

40855 
2.04 

39103 
2.34 

39092 
2.36 

40666 
.62 

39710 
1.37 

40619 
1.45 

40617 
1.45 

38648 
3.48 

39654 
.96 

38210 
4.57 

40633 
1.49 

39091 
2.37 

40150 
de 

40706 
1.67 

39961 
.19 

41806 
4,42 

38524 
3.78 

40349 
rg 

40561 
1.31 

  

1
0
 

+ 
1
2
 

V
O
N
 

W
N
=
 

P+
 

+ 
+
+
+
 
+
+
 
+
+
+
 

+ 

+ 

1
 

+
+
 

4 
0
H
 

O
-
=
2
W
N
O
N
0
0
W
n
N
 oO
 

N
W
O
o
O
O
0
0
 
H
O
N
 

FO
OT
E 

I 
I 

I 
I 

  
Bd LO a SA: Sts 

By lS Ea ME DE  



House District ; ® 1980 Z Black Relative 

# Population Population Deviation 
ae 

  

61 ; 41824 
62 28475 
63 41881 
64 38722 
65 38317 
66 41124 
67 41262 
68 41282 
69 41727 
70 40479 
71 41370 
72 40316 
73 29700 
74 38483 
76 38792 
79 40565 
80 40745 
81 39906 
82 38287 
83 29861 
84 40683 
85 29844 
86 29405 
87 41290 
88 28955 
89 : 39959 
90 38557 
91 40645 
92 40861 
93 39901 
94 39257 
95 ict 38393 
96 39918 
97 29460 
98 40344 
99 39961 

100 38879 
101 41367 
102 40349 
103 39635 
104 39081 
105 39082 

4.46 
3.91 
4.60 
3.29 
4.30 
2.71 
3.06 
3.11 
4.22 
1.10 
3.33 

. 89 

.84 
3.88 
3.171 
4 32 
1.77 
.33 

4.37 
bt 

1.61 
.48 

1.58 
3.13 
2.70 
20 

3.70 
1.52 
2.06 

e
r
a
n
}
 

ow 
¥ 

(
N
W
 

iN
 
-
 

=D
 
d
D
 
N
N
O
W
-
L
A
N
O
N
=
 

N
W
 

. 
LJ

 
eo

 
° 

(IE 
SIE

 T
E 

SE 
SS 

SS
 

—-
 

y 
+ 

4+ 
1
9
 

. 
LJ
 

. 
. 

V
I
T
O
 
N
W
W
O
O
R
N
N
S
T
O
O
U
W
O
W
P
R
r
R
O
0
O
D
O
N
O
 

RS
 
T
h
 

"+
 

0
 

* Districts not Listed have not been altered from white majority to black majority. 

   



COALITIONR OF LOUISIANA 

HOUSE REAPPORTIONIMENT REPORT: 

AREAS OF 

BRUNEATU COLZIITTEE 

PARISH LIST 

EAST CARROLL, 
1IADISOK, HORE! 
TENSAS, WEST 

LAIDRY 

ASSUIPTION, JEFFLRSOIH, 
?, JAUES, ST, JOM 

ASCENSION, ASSUMPTION, EAST BATON 
EAST FELICIAIJA, IBERVILLE, POIKTE 
WEST BATON ROUGE, WEST FELICIAWA 

ORLEANS, ST. BERNARD 

   



996 97 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 430 U.S. 197 

@.. that this st:rute is “ ‘clearly over- ® 430 U.S 144, 51 L.Ed.2d 229 

broad and unconstituuonal on its face.'” 

See, e. g.. Cangiano v. United States, 418 

U.S. 934, 935, 94 S.Ct. 3223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1171 

(1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting), quotng 

United States v. Orito, 413 | U.S. 139, 148, 93 

S.Ct. 2674, 2680, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973) 

(Brennan, J., dissenting). I therefore would 

simply reverse. 

Mr. Justice STEVENS, concurring in part 

and dissenting in part 

There are three reasons which, in combi- 

nation, persuade me that this criminal pros- 

ecution is constitutionally impermissible. 
First, as the Court's opinion recognizes, this 

“statute regulates expression and impiicates 

First Amendment values.” Ante, at 994. 

However distasteful these materiats are to 

some of us, they are nevertheless a form of 

communication and entertainment accepta- 

ble to a subsiantiai segment of society: . 

otherwise, tney would have no vaiue in the 

marketplace. Second, the statute is predi- 

cated on the somewnat illogical )remise 

that a person may be prosecuted criminally 

for providing another with material he has 

a constitutional right 10 possess. Sce Stan- 

"lev v. Georgia, 394 U.S 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 
22 L.Ed.2d 542. Third. the present consti- 

tutional swandards, both substantive and 

procedural,® which apply to these prosccu- 

tions are so intolerably vague thai even- 

handed enforcement of the law is a virtual 

impossibility. Indeed. my brief experience 

on the Court has persuaded me that yrossiy 

disparate treatment of similar offenders is 

a characteristic of the ~riminal ¢nforcement 

of obscenity law. Accordingly, while I 

agree with everything said in the Court's 

opinion, I am unable tn join its judgment 

remanding the case for u new trial. 

O ¢ REY NUm- YSTEM ) 

UNITED JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS OF 
WILLIAMSBURGH, INC. et al, 

Petitioners, 

Vv. 

Hugh L. CAREY et al 

No. 75-104. 

Argued Oct. 6, 1976. 

Decided March 1, 1977. 

Representatives of the Hasidic Jewish 

community within Kings ‘County, New 

York, brought action challenging rudistrict- 

ing of Kings County for state senate and 

assembly districts which split the Hasidic 

Jewish community between two senate dis- 

tricts and two assembly districts. The Dis- 

trict Court for the Eastern District of New 

York, 377 F.Supp. 1164, dismissed and rep- 

resentatives of the Hasidic Jewish commu- 

nity appealed. 1ae Court of Appeals, 510 

F.2d 512, affirmeu and certiorari was grant- 

ed. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice White, 

heid that reapportionment pians were 

among those procedures subject to the Vot- 

ing Rights Act of 1965: that the ,«-rmissi- 

bie use of raciai criterii ‘+ redistricting was 

not confined :o the elimination of eficers of 

past discrimin: ory districting or apportion- 

ment; that N. « York's pian did not violate 

the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment 

r.<hits of white voters: and that the Consti- 

tution permits staies to draw lines -ieliber- 

ately in such a way that the percentage o” 
districts with uu nonwhite majority roughly 

approximates tne percentage of nonwhites 
in the county. 

Affirmed. 

Mr. Justice Brennan concurred in part 
and filed an opinion. 

Mr. Justice Stewart concurred in the 

judgment and filwi an opinion in which Mr. 

Justice Powell concurred. 

® How, for example, c.n an appellate court intelligently determine whether a jury has properly 

identified the relevan. community standards? 

  

  

     



30 US. 144 UNITED JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS, ETC. v. CAREY 997 

Cte as 87 S.CL 996 (1977) 

Mr. Chief Justice Burger dissented and 

iled an opinion. 

I. Elections =12 

Legislative reapportionment is a “stan- 

jard, practice, or procequre witn respect to 

Toning aiTlerent Irom tnat iniarce or eject 

on_November 1, 1968,” within meaning of 

orovision of Voung Pirhis Act prohibiting 

State from implementing a change in its 

vouing system in the absence of declaratory 

judgment from the distrige_eon=t for the 

District of Coll amasea ruling from the 

Attornev General that the apportionment 

does _not_abnage the Sotelo tole On 

acenunit of race or color. Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, § 5, 42 US.C.A. § 18T3¢. 

    

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

2 Elections &=12 

Voting Rights Act prohibition against 

institution of new voting procedures with- 

out tng approval of the Attorney General or 

the thyee-iudge district court is not depend- 

ent upon proving past unconstitutional ap- 

portioAments; the Act is aimed at prevent- 

ing the use of new procedures until their 

capacity for discrimination has been exam- 

ined by the Attorney General or by a court. 

(Per Mr. Justice White with three Justices 

concurring and two Justices concurring in 

the result.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 5, 

42 US.C.A. § 1973c. 

3. Elections =12 

Constitution does not prevent a state 

which is subject to the Voting Rights Act 

from deliberately creating or preserving 

black majorities in particular districts in 

order to insure that its reapportionment 

complies with the Act, and section of the 

Act authorizing racial redistricting where 

appropriate to avoid abridging the right to 

vote on account of race or color is constitu- 

tional. (Per Mr. Justice White with three 

Justices concurring and two Justices con- 

curring in the judgment.) Voting Rights 

Act of 1965, § 5, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c: U.S. 

C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

4. Constitutional Law =2153 

Neither the Fourteenth nor Fifteenth 

Amendment mandates any per se ruie 

against use of racial factors in districting 

and apportionment. (Per Mr.J ustice White 

with three Justices concurring and two Jus- 

tices concurring in the judgment.) U.S.C 

A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

5. Constitutional Law 215.3 

Permissible use of racial criteria in 

drawing of legislative districts is not con- 

fined to the elimination of effects of past 

discriminatory districting or apportionment. 

(Per Mr. Justice White with three Justices 

concurring and two Justices concurring in 

the judgment.) U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 

15; Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 5, 42 

U.S.C.A. § 1973c. 

6. Constitutiona! Law =215.3 

Reapportionment plan does not violate 

the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment 

merely because a state uses specific numeri- 

cal quotas in establishing a certain number 

of black majority districts. (Per Mr. Justice 

White with three Justices concurring and 

two Justices concurring in the judgment.) 

US.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15; Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, & 5,42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c 

7. Elections =12 

Members of the Hasidic Jewish commu- 

nity within Kings County in New York did 

not show that state's legislative redistrict- 

ing plan, which split the community in two 

senate districts and two assembly districts, 

increased minority voting strength under 

the plan, which was adopted in 1974, in 

comparison with the 1966 apportionment 

- and thus did not show that New York did 

any more than the Attorney General was 

authorized to require New York to do under 

the nonretrogression principles embodied in 

interpretations of the Voting Rights Act. 

(Per Mr. Justice White with three Justices 

concurring and two Justices concurring in 

the judgment.) Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

§ 5, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c. 

    

ER
T 

AL
E 

P
O
T
 

ATT
 

NY
PL
 
W
T
 

F
P
O
 

= 
D
S
R
 
L
a
t
c
h
 

ERE
 
0
 

PT
A 

LA
NE
 

2
 

R
I
N
c
a
n
 

fy 
O
r
t
 

A 
uk
e 

a
b
t
 

Vo
 

an
 

Be
 

4 
mo
wn
, 

we
 s

ld
ey
. 

R
E
E
S
E
 

py 
p
I
 
A
N
 

B
r
 
T
y
 
S
L
 
T
d
 

vi
te

 
va
 

A
o
,
 

§ 
S
n
 

en
te
d 

p
y
r
e
 

LP
I 
S
P
U
R
N
E
D
 

JU
 

GP
: 

B
L
 

I 
A
L
I
 

Oh
 

B
E
 

SR
E 

T
E
E
 

IRL
 

KY 
S
O
 

LA
N 
C
V
I
 

J
 

E
E
 

A
i
g
 

sp
 

gt
 
w
R
 

fp
 
R
E
P
R
E
 

B
B
 

ef
 
W
S
 
C
r
d
 
W
a
r
 by

 

a
 

    

  

  

 



| 

  

998 

-wotates =27(10) 

In order to be successful in constitu- 
tional challenge to racial criteria used by 
New York in revising its legislative appor- 
tionment, those chalienging the apportion- 

" ment were required to show, at 2 minimum, 
that minority voting strength was increased 
under the 1974 plan of the State of New 
York in companson with New York's 1966 

    

  

97 SUPREME ey 

  “apportionment. (Per Mr. Justice White 
with three Justices concurring and two Jus- 
tices concurring in the judgment.) Voting 
Rights Act of 1963, § 5, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c; 
U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

L~—— 

9. States &27(3) 

In the absence of any evidence regard- 
ing nonwhite voting strength under New 
York’s 1966 legislative apportionment, the 
creation in 1974 of substantial nonwhite 
majorities in approximately 30% of the sen- 
ale and assembly districts within one coun- 
ty was reasonably related to maintaining 
nonwhite voting strength where the per- 
centage of districts with nonwhite majori- 
ties was less than the percentage of non- 
whites in the county as a whole and where 
it was necessary to take into account the. 
substantial difference between the non- 
white percentage of the total population in 
a district and the nonwhite percentage of 
the voting age popuiation. (Per Mr. Justice 
White with three Justices concurring and 
two Justices concurring in the judgment.) 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 5, 42 U.S.C.A. 
§ 1973¢c; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

10. Elections =12 

It was reasonable for the Attorney 
General to conclude that, with respéct to 
legislative redistricting in Kings County of 
New York, a substantial nonwhite popula- 
tion majority, in the vicinity of 65%, would 
be required to achieve a nonwhite majority 
of cligible voters within any senate or as- 
sembly district. (Per Mr. Justice White 
with three Justices concurring and two Jus- 
tices concurring in the judgment.) Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, § 5,42 US.C.A. § 1973c. 

430 US. 144 

Ii Constitutional Law e=215.3 

Elections =12 

‘Whether or not legislative reapporiion- 
ment plan for Kings County in New York 
was authorized by or was in compiiznce 
with provisions of the Voting Rignts Act, 
New York was free to intentionally create 
substantial, i. e., approximately 65%, non- 
white majorities in approximately 30% of 
the senate and assembly districts; such re 
districting did not violate the Fourteent: or 
Fifteenth Amendments. (Per Mr. Justice 
White with two Justices concurring znd 
two Justices concurring in the judgment.) 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 5, 42 U.S.C.A. 
§ 1973c; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

12. Elections =12 

Although, in individual legislative gis- 
tricts created by redistricting where non- 
white majorities were increased to approxi- 
malely 65%, it hecame more likely, given 
racial bloc voting, that black caniidz:es 
would be eiected instead of their white op- 
ponents and it became less likely that write 
voters would be represented by memuers of 
their own race, as long as whites in :he 
county as a whoie were provided with fz:r 
representation, redistricting which was ce 
signed to create approximately 30% of ine 
senate and assembiy districts with 637 nen 
white majorities did not constitute a COgT- 
zable discrimination against white- or zn 
abridgement of their right to vote on :he 
grounds of race. (Per Mr. Justice White 
with two Justices concurring and two Jos 
tices concurring in the judgment.) Vous 
Rights Act of 1965, § 5. 42 U.S.C.A. § 157%: 
U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 14, 15. 

13. Constitutional Law 2153 

Neither candidates who are found 
cially unacceptable by the majority of ine 
voters, nor the minority of voters who stp- 
port such candidates, have had their Four- 
teenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights in- 
fringed. (Per Mr. Justice White with two 
Justices concurring and two Justices cos 
curring in the judgment.) U.S.C.A.Const 
Amends. 14, 15. 

Te- 

   



APPENDIX 6 Lafayette 

 



WALTER J. LANDRY. Chairman 

501 Tulane Avenue 

Lafayette. LA 70503 USA 

(318) 237-5911 

Res. (318) 232-0725 

J. L. RICHARD, Vice Chairman 

P. O. Box 481 

Carencro. LA 70520 USA 

(318) 233-2961 

Res. (318) 896-6278 

HORACE GUIDRY, Treasurer 

Route 2. Box 42 

Lafayette. LA 70505 USA 

(318) 234-0882 

ANN ARDOIN. Secretary 

Route 1. Box 11-C-6 

Carencro. LA 70520 USA 

(318) 233-0150 

Le Comite Exco 

de la Paroisse de Lafayette 

. Su Parti Démocrate 

September 23, 1981 

Representative Emile Bruneau, Jr. 

Sub-Chairman 
House of Representatives 
State Capital 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Dear Pepe: 

Following my presentation on behalf of the Board of Election 
Supervisors to your sub-committee last week, several black 
leaders in Lafayette contacted me with regard to the plan we 
had proposed. 

In our statement, we agreed that there should be no dilution 
of minority voting strength and it was my understanding that it 
was not feasible to construct a majority black voting representative 
district in Lafayette. 

However, it has been pointed out to me that it is feasible and 
accordingly I submit the attached plan to accomplish this without 
having the three incumbents running against each other. 

I understand several black leaders in Lafayette are proposing a 
plan with several incumbents running against each other but I 
don't believe this is politically feasible. 

I have not had a chance to discuss this plan with the other members 
of the Board of Election Supervisors but in view of your meeting 
on September 24, 1981, I submit this as a personal suggestion only 
for the consideration of the sub-committee. 

I will review the plan with the Board of Election Supervisors early 
next week and submit their observations or the President of the Board 
of Election Supervisors will do so. 

Yours sincerely, 

Walter J. 

WJIL/dn 

Attachment 

Lafayette Parish — in the heart of ihe Acadiana cultural region of Louisiana 

La Paroisse de Lafayetic — au coeur de la région culturelle acadienr.e de Louisiane 

   



PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

DISTRICT 42 

PRECINCT WHITE 

2,785 

3,762 

1,757 

6,237 

819 

1,942 

2,032 

4,072 

5,259 

1,895 

6,784 

37,344 

92.9% 

 



’ 

PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

DISTRICT 38 

PRECINCT 

1A 1 

1A2 

A 

 



PRECINCT 

1-82 

4 J 2 

M1 

M 

M 

PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

DISTRICT 435. 

WHITE 
1,185 

3,348 

3,549 

2,740 

4,603 

3,616 

2,497 

2,112 

3,226 

JRE. 
27,265 

93.6% 

 



+ 

PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DISTRICT 44 

PRECINCT TOTAL 

4 2,111 

2,255 

2,469 

1,983 

2,160 

4,685 

2,651 

1,953 

2,753 

1,779 

2,738 

2,621 

1,237 

840 117 

© 650 2: 189 

1,380... 275 

2,371 881 

2,486 912 

1,019 550 

40,150 22,331 

1007 55.6%  



{72 7 i £2 Lh 23 F. fi. " redid dolachk Cj osemird 

P.8. BOX 3885 
LAFAYETTE LA. 70501 

September 24, 1981 OFFICERS 
Fr. Albert J McKnight. C.S.Sp 

President 

Honerable St. Rep. Johnny Jackson Jr 
Vice- President 

Mrs. Shirley Jefferson 

ay Representative Emile Bruneau, Jr. 
Treasurer Sub-Chairman 

Mr. Lewis “Low White — Director Committee on Reapportionment 
Mr Albert Green St — Fiold Coordinstor House of Representatives 

108 of sncarses State Capital 
ton Rouge, Mrs Detores P. Francois Chairperson 

Mr King Wells 

Migmishi Si. Julien Dear Representative Bruneau: 
ad DISTRICT 

Liievd Lemp Shaiemar Please find attached, the Louisiana Black Assenbiy's proposed Simm Hawkins 

“ev Emanuel Gumms plan for the reapportionment of Lafayette Parish. This is the id Biswncy J plan that I presented at the Committee hearing in Lafayette Be Pale. Shyer last week and for which you gave us a document number. =: Cornell Keeler 

“i. Gaston Dupes 

B18 DISTAICY Further detail on the rationale and justification for 
3 LoRess ayoes. Eserpinin this proposed plan is contained in the accompanying memo. We 

think it is the best possible plan from the perenoctive Te'ma Wyche 

cieuerichk Perkins CI Crealing essenzially four representative win". 05 In 
GISTRICT Lafayette Parish (3 3/4 districts), of preventing the 

Jdarsara Buen, Lorrie dilution of the black population of the Parish into several s Sybal Tayler . . : . . c ow > different districts, and from the viewpoint of minimum 
Patricia Reeves 

© DISTRICT deviation. 
5 Josephine Levy Chairperson 

Mais Bethune Enclesed is our memorandum you will find info on: scseph Dennis 

CiSIRICTY 

rw Williams, St 

Errol C. Dorsey, Cc Ct: 

Fesgalene Frankie Cc 0 2) the total population of each district and the ethnic s Cscrle Simms, Co Cha breakdown, 
{10 TEAM 3) deviation data, and Murphy Bapriste 

t Pantie Beever 4) a map reduced to the appropriate size for your King SS Wells 

Moir:n Bellard 
committee. 

fugene Fitchue 

1) the precincts which comprise our districts, 

 



LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 

The proposed plan for legislative reapportionment of Lafayette Parish hereby 

being presented conforms in all respects to the rules for legislative reapportion- 

ment as adopted by the House Governmental Affairs Committee specifically with 

respects to the following two very important principles: 

(1) It take into serious consideration the one man-one vote principle in 

an area of extremely rapid growth by creating ome 3/4 district in 

the Northern Section of Lafayette Perish, This District assuredly 

will be a full Lafayette District following the 1990 Census. 

It prevents dilution of minority voting strength and provides an 

opportunity for political representation by minority members of a 

contiguous community. 

In addition to these two significant points, ‘we believe that this reapport- 

ionmeht plan is more favorable than the committee's plan for the following 

reasons: 

(1) The plan allows for the proposed District 44 to follow along the 

current Lafayette Parish School Board District C Boundary lines which 

contains approximately one-half of the population of the proposed 

District 44. The School Board District currently has two minority elected 

representatives representing this district on the Lafayette Parish 

School Board. 

Also, included with™he boundary of the proposed District 44 is one 

minority person elected to represent the City of Lafayette and two minority 

persons elected to represent the Lafayette Parish Police Jury. 

Therefore, acceptance of the proposed plan would allow an opportunity for 

elected officials, both local and state, representing a contiguous community 

to reflect views consistent with the population of that district.  



In significant past general elections, both statewide and national, 

voters within the proposed District 44 consistently and overwhelmingly 

supported one candidate while voters of the other proposed districts 

consistently and overwhelmingly supported the opposing candidate. 

Therefore, we contend that the proposed District 44 voters represent a 

unique consensus of political belief in Lafayette Parish which would be 

destroyed if diluted into another district or districts. 

The economic profile of the proposed districts in the plan submitted 

groups populations with similiar economic profiles into the same 

districts. 

The proposed diseride plan submitted allows for adding voters from one 

parish rather than two additional parishes to make-up the balance of the 

% population needed to complete proposed District 38, tery lessening 

the dilution of the voting strength of a political sub-division (parish) 

when chosing its State Representatives. 

The proposed plan would provide for minor precint adjustments in future 

reapportionment efforts since the growth areas are outside of the 

City limit of Lafayette both to its North and South. 

The plan submitted has a percentage deviation from ideal which does not 

exceed 1.67 above or below ideal levels. 

 



PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DISTRICT 38 

PRECINCT TOTAL WHITE BLACK 

Al 2,694 2,414 273 

A2 6,745 5,089 1,612 

A3 2,785 2,39 381 

1 2,295 1,939 342 

1,691 2,155 499 

5,929 5,587 302 

4,502 3,870 537 

3,193 2,982 187 

29,834 25,460 4,133 

100.0% 85.3% 13.92 

 



PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DISTRICT 43 

PRECINCT TOTAL 

2,948 

3,407 

3,895 

1,792 

6,639 

1,053 

2,111 

2,926 

4,479 

2,525 

1,916 

_6,942 
40,633 

100.0% 

 



PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DISTRICT 43. 

PRECINCT TOTAL WHITE 

V18B 3 4,657 4,387 

vig 2 tok, 1,481 1,428 

36 1,138 1,132 

V3 1,212 1,194 

1,641 1,564 

3,584 3,549 

2,834 2,740 

2,330 2,305 

4,892 4,603 

3,699 3,616 

5,473 5,259 

2,194 C4. 21 

3,840 3,226 

455 389 

39,400 . 37,504 

100.0% 95.2% 

 



PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DISTRICT 44 

PRECINCT TOTAL 

2,111 

2,255 

2,469 

1,983 

2,160 

4,685 

2,651 

1,953 

2,753 

1,779 

2,738 

2,621 

1,237 

840 

650 

1,389 

2,371 

2,486 

1,019 

40,150 

100%  



oh ji HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES . 1 

DISTRICT 44 

VOTING STRENGTH 
  

PRECINCT TOTAL VOTERS 
  

1B4 827 

1c1 1,016 

1,108 

1,019 

989 

1,626 

1,438 

1,061 

1,381 

975 

1,262 

768 

647 

518 

406 

680 

1,027 

1,022 

541 

18,311 9,166 

100% 50.1%  



WARD - PRE GINCT - LOCATION 
WARD DISTRICT PRECINCT PRECINCT LOCATION 

se
es
 

sr
e 

BHTHAND b RL STATION 
00: b-M' POWER PLANT 
TRUMAN | EMENTARY GYM 

L 
ons 

ZAAPENTLRY UNON WAL 
G.0 PCaEh PLANT Di STRICT 
ACADIAN SCHOOL, WOSS STREET 

ation ALEXANDER FIRE 1 
TEURLING HIGH SCROOL 
ALICE BOUCHER SCHOOL 
NORTHSICE WIGH SCHOOL 
LEROSEN SCHOOL 
PELICAN FINE STATION 
COMMUNITY CENTER * we

s 
mm
 

co
e 

ae
 

EVANGELINE FIE STATION 
MYRTLE PLACE SCHOOL 
LAFAYETTE JUNIOR MIGH, WORTH 
LAFAYETTE JUNIOR WWM, SOUTH 

FIRE STATION, JONNSTON STREET 
USL TRAINING SCHOOL 
WAR MEWORIAL BUILDING 31

33
 

ec
ee

 

OURT HOUSE, EAST 
COURT MOUSE, WEST 

  

ST LANDRY PARISH 

A \"” Sy NO L YY \ WARD BOUNDARY 

RY / or { Wy “¢ + thea) a 3) Jo 

XC Tea: A 

  

L. J ALLEMAN SCHOOL 
KALISTE SALO0M FIRE STATION   MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM 
COMEAUS WiGn SCHOOL on. 
YOUNGSVILLE SCHOOL GYM, NORTH ACADIA 
YOUNGSVILLE $7400. GYM.,SOUTH PARISH     BROUSSARD ELEMENTARY GYM, IN 
BROUSSARD ELEMENTARY GYM. OUT 
SOUTHWEST RENABILITATION CENTER 
ST PATRICK COMMUNITY CENTER 
LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL LOBBY 
LAFAYETTE WIGH SCHOOL BOY'S Gra 
8 ATHAM COL 
MONTGOMERY SUNOOL GVM 

    
SCOTT $CHOOL Gia 
PHAR ELEMENTARY Grim 
MONTROSE +IRE STAV.ON 

ON SEMVICE STATION 
CnOCL § 

      00
00
0 

EE
E 

EE
ER

 
F
F
F
 

R
E
X
 

LC
C 

mm
——
e 

“
a
u
n
 

L
N
 

BE
NT

 
Bu
N-
 

Bu
n-
 

ui 

Tro a 
COGAR WANIW SCHOOL » H 

1   
  

BOUNDARY 

DISTRICT BOUNDARY 

PRECINCT BOUNDARY 

  

Tr FAAL NMEAAL (Bow 
CROWS Tal PRECINCT NUMSEH 

  
a - 

Eiri 
ACADIA aa TY J 

) 
‘ 

oe [EN 
. | 

    
Tn 

VERMILION PARISH DISTRICT 
42 

2”     
VOTING PRECINCT MAP 

LAFAYETTE PARISH 
LOUISIANA 

ORDINANCE NO. 284 DEC. 2, 1974 

scat 
o ‘ 2 ’ vues 
  

LAFAYETTE PARISH POLICE JURY 

lade om.mue fo Ate 7 (A 
WALTER $ COMEAUX, JR. wRs ©a 1%5pE1L 

RESIDENT SLCRE TARY - TRE ASURL A 

Nel asic A 
LLOYD A GIROUARD 

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 

  

  

      
    

  

DISTRICT 
—44 . 

      

    

    

  
  

WARD BOUNDARY ~—. 

  VERMILION PARISH  



  
    

© [elters to he Editor 
  
  
  

  

(Ohne 

Editor, Mcining Adve 1. 
Unpropert.aned Rea portic ; How loz Legislature? How 1 Governor? How long will blacks of this state, iho comprise : ‘approximately 30% of the popui:! ion, have to suffer the denial, humiliation a. | injustice of unequal representation? All ration] persons of "Louisiana know that a truly representative + government would accord blacks the right to at least two of the eight seats in the House of Representatives, and 43 (31 House, 12 Senate) of the 114 seats (105 House, 39 Senate) seats In the Legislature, based on the racial composition of the state's population, 

Reapportionment 
the special session of the Legislature, which were strongly influenced by the reported!y unyielding insistence of the governor, would give blacks no chance at being elected to the currently and historically “all-white” Louisiana congressional delegation in Washington. Under the plan, blacks could elect 15 (12 House, 3 Senate) to the «Legislature. Instead of a plan that allows blacks * to send two to Washington, the proposed plan allews blacks to elect zero to Congress; and instezd of to right to elect 43 state “cgislators, propane ton Jag sonly 15, 
Cp. pres at would 

allow 0 represent tion leral and 
stato levels sovernment, the p:- sed plan 
fall: far short by allowing 0% and 10% black representation at the respective levels of 
government. The unproportioned plan is unfair to 

IR H yr tative yp 

blacks of this state, and should he contested in every legal way, 

The substaron of the governcr': reported state og “hatin the by 'erest of 

wonnee. 
oa 

plans recently approved in - 

blacks iy 

Turnley 
interest of blacks on this subject, and their position differs considerably from that of the governor. Before passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, no black, since Reconstruction, was allowed to serve in Congress or the Legislature. The same blatant Injustice existed throughout the South, at every leve] of government, during this period. Ironically the district (Louisiana 2nd) represented by the only Southerner to vote for the act, would be denied a black (17 years later) by Gov. Treen, in contradiction of the intent and natural consequences of the law, as well as the spirit of the lone Southerner supporting President Johnson's act, the late and progressive Hale Boggs of Louisiana, 

“iidle. Representatives “Dick” 

RB SR Da ‘® ; l A back seat for the girls again? 
Editor, Morning Advocate: 

Here we go agin! Another frustrating season of noncoverage for girls basketball in East Baton Rouge Pari:h. 
Iappreci:iv *he extensive coverage that was given the R:cnptorist boys winning tradition in this morning's paper. That is much deserved. Although we don’t have girls that are 6’ 9”, and 6’ 8” and possible All-Americans on our team, I feel our girls deserved more than a mere The Redemptorist Lady Wolves also won 29-24, ‘These Lady Wolves have names and there are also statistics available. : We have a new roach this year with a winning tradition, Co - 1 

ud Jue Delpit articulate the best - 

Walvegare also trying to gain 

Finally, 

the fallure of White-dominated 

‘rean ortlonment is disproportiona le 
blacks suffer from dealing wi: stark realities of deprivation, caused in pari 

governme:;: bodies tb establish equitable, represent: . majority-Black districts in the South. Give: attitude of most whites towards blac: . majority-black district is the only way 1 has, can, or will be elected in any repre: ni . Way, to responsible public office, As » + and compassionate human being, i embarassed by that fact, but it is ne . i» true, and we must face truth. 
How long Louisiana? How Long? 

" P.O. Box 9253 
Baton Rouge 

this recognition. 
Iknow, however, that I'm expecting a bit nn; from a paper that will 

team on the front page 
put a losing bask: :: 
and a leading Loi: :. 

college national championship team on th: : 
page; being a girls team 

* It, had nothing to do with that I'm 
more people were interested in LSU losing tha the Lady Techsters winning, 
Come on, give our hard working gir! throughout the parish more deserved recognitio; 

1728 Bellfort Drive 
Baton Rouge 

WHE dg 

with an All-Americar, 
sure. After. 

PAT DEAN 

Pl 

“ C ROLAND Cirpy