Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

T OF LOUISIANA 

{IBARBARA MAJOR, et a Civil Action 

llversus No. 82-1192 

{DAVID C. El et «¢ Section: H 

T} 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPORT OF 

_ MOTION TO CONSOI ,IDATE 

his matter has been temporarily transferred 

||consideration of a motion to consolidate this matter with that of Couhie 

i y > « - . ’ . . 
(Brown, C.A. 82-1136, now pending ii s section. 

[lonce and future candidate for the United States Congress 
i 

llActs 1976, No. 697, the current apportionment of districts 

[lrepresentatives to the United States Congress, be declared 

{lapportionment for the )82 congressional elections. 

Mr. Couhig realizes, of course, that > 

|I{Legislature reapportioned those districts, Act 
1 

[Session of 1981. The 1981 plan, however, is 

flquirements of the Voting Rights Act, Section ° 42 USC §1973¢c. 

||submit ted to the U.S. Department of Justice, but that Depar 

fladditional information from the State of Louisiana. Under 

lace, the Justice Department has sixty days from the date the additional infor- 

[mation is received within which to approve or disapprove the submitted plan. 

lIThat information has not been submitted to the Justice Department as   
flof this writing. Mr. Couhig's suit is concerned with his uncertainty pe h 

| 
indary lines between the First and Second Congressional Districts ai 

| 
i 

| 
the 198 

i 
{Congressional elections will be run since there is 

1981 plan will not be approved or, if approved, will not 

[shortly before the July 5-9, 1982 qualification dates. 

The admitted goal of the Couhig litigation is to decl 

| : > 7 o ’ - {jas valid for the 1982 congressional elections. One of 
i 

  
l|llitigation is to declare that plan unconstitutional. 

[litigations are diametrically opposed, but the facts 
Il 

|  



ll case are exactly the same. The 1976 plan is either valid or unconst 

and a decision by is Section of the Eastern District will necess 

{a decision in Section H absent 

Ino reason for two Sections of 

|| same defendants. Consolidation of the two cases would not only 

[| economy, but will also eliminate the possibility t different Sectic 

Il this Court could reach contradictory conclusions on the sar 

| issues. 

The same concern has been expressed in conference with all 

the Major litigation is broader than the Couhig litication, t 

declare unconstitutional not only the 1976 Congressional plan 

I congressional plan as well as the 1971 and 1981 plans for the Louisiana 

|| Representatives. That statement is true, of course, as even a 

of the two complaints discloses. The msponse to the statement 

[| cases can be consolidated for determination of the questions in 

 overiap, and, upon resolution of those questions, this Section, 

motion or sua sponte could easily transfer the remaining issues 

| litigation to Section H if it were appropriate to do so. The 

Major litigation is broader than the Couhig litigation does not obvi 

| . ~ that the two cases have an overlap of questions of law and fact that 

be resolved in one consolidated proceeding on the salient issues. 

Respectfully submitted, 

[J ri / A 4 

Kms eH oe 
R. JAME f RELLOCE 

L 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

  
New Orleans, Louisiana 

Tel. 504/524-0016 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE 
  

1 I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon counsel 
for all parties to this proceeding, by mailing the same to each by f 
United States mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid on this 

ll day of A pm ll CAs lom,   
  

yf nl) 

R. haw; ID) [Celle Sor 

Vv