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
Public Court Documents
November 22, 1988

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Chisom Hardbacks. 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, 1988. 85a9644f-f211-ef11-9f89-6045bda844fd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7e849479-cb9d-4704-96b8-da6b64cbdca8/correspondence-from-strickler-to-counsel-notice-of-motion-motion-to-intervene-of-pascal-f-calogero-jr-certificate-pursuant-to-local-rule-313a-answer-of-intervenor-calogero-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-intervene-of-calogero. Accessed July 07, 2025.
Copied!
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