Correspondence from Strickler to Counsel; Notice of Motion; Motion to Intervene of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr.; Certificate Pursuant to Local Rule 3.13A; Answer of Intervenor Calogero; Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene of Calogero

    LAW OFFICES 

LEBLANC, STRICKLER & W OOLHANDLER 

MARGARET A. (15 EGGY) LEBLANC 

JO HARRIET STRICKLER 

ANN WOOLHANDLER 

ONE POYDRAS PLAZA, SUITE 1075 

639 LOYOLA AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70113 

(504) 581-4346 

GEORGE M. STRICKLER, JR. 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 
OF COUNSEL 

November 22, 1988 

Re: Chisom v. Edwards, E.D. La. No. 86-4075 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Enclosed are copies of the motion to intervene and 
accompanying documents that we filed today. 

Yours truly, 

/ 44. 0 -Y1C ( LI/ 

George M. Strickler, Jr. 
GMS:bw 
endl 

cc: William P. Quigley, Esq. 
Roy Rodney, Jr. 
Julius Chambers, Esq. 
Charles S. Ralston 
Lani Guinier 
Pamela Karlen 
Ron Wilson 
William Guste, Jr. 
M. Truman Woodward, Jr. 
Blake G. Arata 
A.R. Christovich 
Moise W. Dennery 
Robert G. Pugh 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD .CHISOM, ET: AL., 
Plaintiffs, 

versus 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL., 
Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

86-4075 

SECTION A (MAG.6) 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that applicant for intervention, the 

Honorable Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., will bring on the foregoing 

Motion To Intervene for hearing in Section .A of this Court on 

1?-1 
December/7; 1988, at 10:00 am. or as soon thereafter as counsel 

may be heard. 

November 22, 1988. 

GEORGE M. STRICKLER, JR., T.A. #12536 
ANN WOOLHANDLER #13682 
LeBlanc, Strickler & Woolhandler 
One Poydras Plaza--Suite 1075 
639 Loyola Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 
(504) 581-4346 

MOON LANDRIEU # 6316 
717 Girod 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 525-6637 

Attorneys for Applicant for 
Intervention, PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR. 



t. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

• RONALD CHISOM, ET AL., 
Plaintiffs, 

versus 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL., 
• . Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

86-4075 

SECTION A (MAG.6) 

MOTION TO INTERVENE OF PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR. 

The Honorable Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Associate Justice 

of the Supreme Court of Louisiana moves pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) to intervene as of right in the 

above-styled action as a defendant. Alternatively, he moves 

for permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 24(b). 

Justice Calogero does not seek to oppose the plaintiffs 

on the merits of their claims and will not request delay in 

the litigation of this matter. Because Justice Calogero's 

interests will likely be affected by any remedy adopted by the 

Court in this case and because of the possibility of 

litigation in this Court concerning the appropriate remedy, he 

seeks to intervene to participate in any litigation concerning 

the future configuration of the Supreme Court district from 

which he has been elected and any litigation that might affect 

his current term of office. The reasons supporting this 

motion are more fully stated in the accompanying memorandum. 



Respectfully submitted, 

GEORGE M. STRICKLER, JR., T.A.#12536 
ANN WOOLHANDLER #13682 
LeBlanc, Strickler & Woolhandler 
One Poydras Plaza--Suite 1075 
639 Loyola Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 
(504) 581-4346 

MOON LANDRIEU #6316 
717 Girod 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 525-6637 

Attorneys for Applicant for 
Intervention, Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of the foregoing 
motion, first-class postage prepaid, to all counsel of record, 
this   day of November, 1988. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL., 
Plaintiffs, 

versus 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL., 
Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

86-4075 

SECTION A (MAG.6) 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 3.13A 

I certify that I have contacted counsel for all the 

parties in this case and advised them of my intention to 

file the foregoing motion to intervene. William Quigley, 

representing the plaintiffs and plaintiff class, and Robert 

Pugh, representing the defendants, stated that they had no 

opposition to the motion. Robert Berman, representing the 

intervenor United States, stated that the government opposed 

the motion. 

November 21, 1988. 

George M. Strickler, Jr. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL., 
Plaintiffs, 

versus 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL., 
Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

86-4075 

SECTION A (MAG.6) . 

ANSWER OF INTERVENOR PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR. 

I. Preliminary Statement 

This action was brought by plaintiffs to challenge, as a 

violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and of the Fourteenth 

and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the 

method of election of Justices to the Supreme Court of Louisiana 

from the First Supreme Court District. Specifically, plaintiffs 

allege that the election of two justices at-large from the First 

Supreme Court District dilutes the voting strength of black 

voters in the First District and thus violates both the Voting 

Rights Act and the Constitution. Intervenor, the Honorable 

Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., is one of two Associate Justices of the 

Supreme Court elected from the First Supreme Court District. He 

was most recently re-elected on October 1, 1988. Justice 

Calogero has taken his oath of office and his commission was 

issued for a ten-year term which will commence on January 1, 1989 

as required by the Louisiana Constitution 

II. Jurisdiction 

Intervenor admits that this Court has jurisdiction of 

this cause. 



III. Parties 

The identity and status of all parties described in the 

amended complaint is admitted. 

Intervenor, Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., is an Associate 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana elected from the First 

Supreme Court electoral district. He has served on the Supreme 

Court since January, 1973 and was most recently re-elected on 

October 1, 1988. Justice Calogero resides in Jefferson Parish. 

IV. Class Action Allegations 

Intervenor admits that this action is an appropriate class 

action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

V. Facts 

Intervenor admits all allegations of the amended complaint 

concerning the present composition of and method of electing 

justices to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. (First through Fifth 

paragraphs) 

Intervenor admits the allegations of the amended complaint 

concerning the current population and racial composition of the 

First Supreme Court District. (Sixth paragraph) 

Intervenor agrees with plaintiffs that, were the First 

Supreme Court District divided into two single-justice districts, 

"the most logical division of the district *** would have Orleans 

Parish electing one Supreme Court Justice and the parishes of 

Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines together electing the 

other Supreme Court Justice." (Seventh paragraph) 

2 



Intervenor admits the allegations of the amended complaint 

concerning the current population and racial composition of the 

parishes that make up the First Supreme Court District. (Eighth 

and Ninth paragraphs) 

Intervenor lacks sufficient information to take a position 

with respect to the allegations in the amended complaint 

concerning the dilution of black voting strength in the First 

Supreme Court District. Intervenor will not, however, contest 

any proof of such facts put in evidence by plaintiffs. (Tenth 

paragraph) 

VI. Causes of Action 

Intervenor admits that the plaintiffs state a cause of 

action under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in their complaint. 

Intervenor denies that the current method of selecting justices 

to the Supreme Court of Louisiana from the First Supreme Court 

District is purposefully discriminatory or in violation of either 

the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution. 

VII. Equity 

Intervenor admits that if plaintiffs prevail in this action 

they would be entitled to declaratory and equitable relief. 

VIII. Prayer for Relief 

Generally, intervenor does not oppose the relief requested 

by the plaintiffs. Any relief granted will, however, impact on 

the laws and constitution of this state. Any relief granted by 

• this court should not go beyond that necessary to cure any 

violations of law found in this case. 

3 



Specifically, intervenor does not oppose the division of the 

First Supreme Court District into two single-justice districts. 

He does pray that he should not be required to run for office 

from a district in which he does not reside. Intervenor will 

further oppose any order which will have the effect of voiding 

his election on October 1, 1988 or shortening the term of office 

to which he was elected on October 1, 1988. The vote dilution of 

which plaintiffs complain can be remedied without any such impact 

on a sitting justice of the state's highest court. 

November 22, 1988. 

GEORGE M. STRICKLER, JR., T.A. #12536 
ANN WOOLHANDLER #13682 
LeBlanc, Strickler & Woolhandler 
One Poydras Plaza--Suite 1075 
639 Loyola Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 
(504) 581-4346 

MOON LANDRIEU #6316 
717 Girod 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 525-6637 

Attorneys for Applicant for 
Intervention, THE HONORABLE PASCAL 
F. CALOGERO, JR. 

4 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL., 
Plaintiffs, 

versus 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL., 
Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE 
OF PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR. 

This is an action under the United States Constitution and 

under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 

1982, 42 U.S.C. 1973. The original plaintiffs claim, inter alia, 

that the at-large election of two justices for the Supreme Court 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

86-4075 

SECTION A (MAG.6) 

of Louisiana from the First Supreme Court District dilutes the 

voting strength of black voters. 

The Honorable Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. is an Associate 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. He was elected from 

the First Supreme Court District in 1972, was re-elected in 1974 

and was re-elected again on October 1, 1988. Under the Louisiana 

Constitution, his term of office will expire in December, 1998. 

Justice Calogero has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 24(a) to intervene as of right in this action. He has 

moved in the alternative for permissive intervention under Rule 

24(b). 

Intervention of Right  

The requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a) 

are that the intervenor: (1) has an interest relating to the 

transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) that he is so 

1 



situated that disposition of the action may as a practical matter 

impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; (3) that 

applicant's interests are not adequately represented by existing 

parties; and (4) that the application be timely. See e.g., NOPSI  

v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir.) (en 

banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1019 (1984); International Tank 

Terminals v. M/V Acadia Forest, 579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir. 

1978). Justice Calogero meets all these requirements as set out 

more fully below. 

1. Justice Calogero has an interest relating to the transaction 
that is the subject of the action.  

An intervenor of right must show a direct and substantial 

interest in the subject matter of the litigation. See, e.g., 

Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas, 386 U.S. 129 

(1967) (applicants who would be economically affected by 

antitrust divestiture plan should have been allowed to intervene 

of right); Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) 

(union member who could not have initiated action under LMRDA 

nevertheless could intervene of right in government-initiated 

suit). Cf. Donaldson v. United States, 440 U.S. 517, 531 (1971) 

(taxpayer could not intervene of right in action to enforce IRS 

summons against third parties when he had no proprietary interest 

in documents nor claimed any privilege; "significantly 

protectable interest" required). 

There can be no doubt of Justice Calogero's substantial 

interest in the subject matter of this litigation. He has been 

elected three times from the First Supreme Court District and 

2 



• S• 
will begin serving a ten-year term in January of 1990. The 

object of this suit is to divide the First Supreme Court into two 

single-Justice districts. Such a division will directly affect 

his interest in continuing to serve on the Supreme, Court when he 

runs again. The outcome of this litigation could also affect his 

tenure in the office to which he has recently been elected. The 

issue of whether the October 1988 election should be allowed to 

take place was litigated in this proceeding. Justice Calogero 

has an obvious and concrete interest in serving out his ten-year 

term as mandated by the Louisiana Constitution. 

2. Justice Calogero is so situated that disposition of the action 
may impair or impede his ability to protect his interest.  

Whatever the remedy that is adopted in this case, Justice 

Calogero will, as a practical matter, be bound by the judgment. 

An order directing, for example, a new election for his seat on 

the Supreme Court or one requiring that he run in a district 

where he no longer resides would be binding on him even if he 

were not .a party to the case. Any later attempt by Justice 

Calogero to attack a remedy adopted in this case would be deemed 

an impermissible collateral attack. 

Clearly applicant's being bound by a judgment in this case 

would impair his interest. See, Atlantis Development Corp. v.  

United States, 379 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1967) (stare decisis effect 

of judgment on intervening party justifies intervention of 

right); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: 

Civil 2d Section 1908, at 275 (surely sufficient that the 

judgment will have a binding effect on would-be intervenor). 

3 



3. The applicant is not adequately represented in these 
proceedings.  

The showing of inadequate representation required for 

intervention of right generally is not considered to be a 

difficult one. Trbovich, 404 U.S. at 538 n. 10. The Fifth 

Circuit entertains a presumption of adequacy of representation 

only if the objectives sought by the intervenor are the same as 

those of a party. Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 

1984). The interest of the plaintiffs in this case is to have 

the current two-justice electoral district struck down and new 

single-justice districts, one with a black majority, formed. 

While Justice Calogero's interests are not necessarily 

inconsistent with the plaintiffs' objectives, they can hardly be 

characterized as the same as those of the plaintiffs. Justice 

Calogero is not a member of the plaintiffs' class and plaintiffs 

certainly do not claim to represent his interests. Neither do 

defendant State of Louisiana or intervenor United States 

represent the interests of Justice Calogero. By definition, the 

state and federal governments represent only the broad public 

interests in seeing their respective laws enforced and neither 

has any interest in the impact any change in the procedure for 

electing justices may have on any particular person. Indeed 

neither government has the right to assert the personal interest 

of Justice Calogero. 

4 



4. The application for intervention is timely. 

The timeliness of the application for intervention depends 

on the facts of the case. For example, in United Airlines v.  

McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a 

plaintiff class member who intervened after final judgment in 

order to appeal had met the timeliness requirement. The reason 

for the intervention, that the named plaintiff was not going to 

pursue an appeal, had not arisen until shortly before the 

intervention. 432 U.S. at 394-96; see also Baker v. Wade, 769 

F.2d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (approving intervention 

in order to appeal), cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 3337, 3338 (1986). 

Justice Calogero's motion for intervention is timely in 

light of the purposes for which he seeks to intervene. He does 

not seek to contest the plaintiffs' effort to have the current 

Supreme Court district declared in violation of the Voting Rights 

Act. He seeks to intervene as a party in order to participate in 

litigation concerning the appropriate remedy in the event there 

is such litigation. If the court rules on the merits of the case 

for plaintiffs, the state legislature must be given an 

opportunity to devise an election scheme for the First District 

that will comply with the Voting Rights Act. Only if the 

legislature fails to adopt an election plan which complies with 

the Act will the court be asked to devise a remedy. Because 

there is a possibility that the remedy will be devised in whole 

or in part by this court, Justice Calogero needs to be a party to 

the proceeding at that stage. Because the remedy stage has not 

5 



yet arrived and Justice Calogero's intervention as a party will 

not delay this proceeding, the motion is timely. 

Permissive Intervention 

If the Court should deny the applicant's motion to intervene 

of right, applicant requests that the Court grant permissive ' 

intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). The applicant's claims 

clearly overlap factually and legally with the claims in the 

principal action, since applicant claims that certain remedies 

that might be adopted in this case would, if implemented, violate 

his right to hold office under the Louisiana Constitution. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Justice Calogero respectfully 

requests that the Court grant his petition to intervene and allow 

his answer in intervention to be filed. 

November 22, 1988. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GEORGE M. STRICKLER, JR.,T.A.#12536 
ANN WOOLHANDLER #13682 
LeBlanc, Strickler & Woolhandler 
One Poydras Plaza--Suite 1075 
639 Loyola Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 
(504) 581-4346 

MOON LANDRIEU #6316 
717 Girod 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 525-6637 

Attorneys for Applicant for Intervention 
PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR. 

6 



Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was 

mailed, first-class postage prepaid, to all counsel of record, 

this   day of November, 1988. 

7