Second Draft of Complaint in Major v Treen from Jim Kellogg

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

TELEPHONE: 504-524-0016 

IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 

R. JAMES KELLOGG 

MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

March 24, 1982 

Mr. Napoleon B. Williams 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 

Dear Napoleon: 

Two items for your attention, relative to reapportionment in Louisiana: 

(1) Please find enclosed the second draft of Major v. Treen, a proposed 
lawsuit challenging the 1981 apportionment of the Louisiana House of 
Representatives and the Louisiana members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 
We obviously have to resolve the problem of plaintiffs, but would appreciate 
input from you and/or Lani concerning this draft. 

Also enclosed is a bill from Federal Express for testimony sent to 
Senator Edward Kennedy relative the Voting Rights Act extension. 
Lani asked that I send it up to him by Federal Express and said that 
your office would cover the costs. The bill has not been paid by 
us--you can just pay it directly, if that is possible. 

Thank you for your attention to these two matters. I look forward to discussing 
the lawsuit with you. If I am not in, of course, you can give your comments to 
Bill, 

Sincerely, 

Da. fod 
. James =r 

rjk/hm 

enclosures 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ERN DISTRICT QF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, CIVIL ACTION 

  
-against~ SECTION: 

DAVID C. TREEN, in his capacity DIVISION: 

as Governor of the State of 

Louisiana, and JAMES H. BROWN, CLASS ACTION 
in his capacity as Secretary of 
State of the State of Louisiana THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 

  

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

  1. This action is brought by the black citizens on behalf of them 

selves and all other black citizens who are eligible and registered to vote in 

the State of Louisiana. They bring this action to enforce their right to have 

an effective vote in the election of the Louisiana House of Representatives a 

in the election of Louisiana Representatives to the United States Congress. 

They seek declaratory and injunctive relief from any election being conducted 

pursuant to the plans of approtionment in effect prior to November, 

grounds that such an election would violate the one-person, one-vote principles 

of the Fourteenth Amendment in that those plans are grossly malapportioned. 

Additionally, they seek similar relief against the plans of apportionment adopte«   in November, 1981 by the Louisiana Legislature for the Louisiana House of Repre 

sentatives and for Louisiana Representatives to the United States Congress, 

because those plans do not comply with the one-person, one-vote standards and 

because they dilute tl Vi of k citizens. 

JURISDICTION 

action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought 

and 42 USC 81983. his Court has jurisdiction   
as well as 42 USC 81973c¢.   

aintiffs' claims under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

as amended, and under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments 

United States Constitution must be determined by a district court 

pursuant to 28 USC 82284(e) and 42 USC §1973c. 

     



Plaintiffs seek declaratory and other appropriate relief pursuant 

201 and 2202,     
111. PARTIES 

5. The following persons are the plaintiffs in this action. Each is 

a black citizen of the United States and of the State of Louisiana, residing 

and registered to vote in the Parish listed below: 

Barbara Major - 

'he plaintiffs in this action sue on behalf of themselves and all 

irly situated. 

DAVID C. TREEN is Governor of the State of Louisiana. He 

in that official capacity. As Governor, Mr. Treen has the duty to suppo   
Constitution 

cuted. The Governor also has certain duties unde 

Election Code o } State of Louisiana, La. R.S. Tirle 18. 

"JIM" BROWN is Secretary of State of the State of 

Louisiana. He is sued in that official capacity. As Secretary of State, Mr. 

Brown has the duty to prepare and certify the ballots for all elections,       
promulgate all election returns and administer the election laws.     

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

8. This matter is brought as a class action under Rule 23(b) (2) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all black persons who are 

residents and registered voters of the State of Louisiana. 

9. The number of persons who would be included in the above-c 

class would be approximately 

10. The plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the proffered clas 

in that they are situated similarly to the members of the class There are no 

actual or potential conflicts of interest and the attorneys for plaintiffs are 

competent and able to handle the litigation. 

11. The questions of law and fact common to the class are those impli- 

cit in this complaint including whether the apportionment of the Louisiana House 

s
m
h
 

We
en
 

s
n
t
l
c
e
—
 

of Representatives and of the Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. Congress { 

violate the principles of one-person, one-vote.      



    

    

  

  

    

c 12. The current apportionment of the Louisiana House of 

tives was established by Acts 1971, No. 106 and Acts 1972, No. 457 

13. The current apportionment, which had a deviation of approximately 

9.1 percent based on the 1970 Census, has a deviation of approximately 111 

percent based on the 1980 Census. 

14. The Louisiana Legislature has drawn a reapportionment plan ef 

tive at Noon on March 12, 1984, Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session 

(November, 1981). That plan is subject to the pre-clearance requirements o 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 81973c¢, but has not been 

by the United States Department of Justice. 

15. The purpose and effect of the November, 1981 plan of apportion- 

ment for the Louisiana House of Representatives is to dilute the voting strengtl 

of black citizens and to deny them the effective utilization of the right to 

vote on account of their race. 

the City of New Orleans (Parish of Orleans), despite 

of population from forty-five percent to fifty-five percent, the number of black 

majority districts was reduced from eleven to seven and the number of white 

majority districts increased from seven to eight. 

17. The current apportionment of the districts for electing Represent 

tives to the U.S. Congress was established by Acts 1976, No. 697. 

18. The current apportionment, which had a deviation of approximately, 

percent based on the 1970 Census, has a deviation of approximately 

percent based on the 1980 Census. 

19. The Louisiana Legislature has drawn a reapportionment plan effec 

| 

tive at Noon on January 3, 1983, Act 20 of the First Extraordinary Session of 

1981 (November 20, 1982). That plan is subject to the pre-clearance requirement] 

of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, but has not been 

approved by the United States Department of Justice. 

20. Qualification for election under the November, 1981 plan of 

apportionment is scheduled for July 5-9, 1982. The primary election is schedule   
for September 11, 1982; the general election is scheduled for November 2, 1982. 

21 The purpose and effect of the November, 1981 plan of apportion- . 

{ 

| 

! 

| 

ment for Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. Congress is to dilute the voting | 
{ 

strength of black citizens and to deny them the effective utilization of the 

right to vote on account of their race. 

= J  



  

    
    

During November, 1981, both houses of the Louisiana Legislature ’ 

which would have established a black majority district in Orleans 

Parish. Under a threat of a veto by Defendant Treen, the plan was modified so 

as to split the heavy concentration of black voters in Orleans Parish between 

two districts. The plan as adopted by the Legislature and signed by Defendant 

[reen, established a First Congressional District with over thirty sides, 

creating a rough approximation of the cartoon character, Donald Duck, out of the 

Second Congressional District. 

23. Defendants Treen and Brown will conduct elections for vacancies 

prior to March 12, 1984, in the Louisiana House of Representatives under the 

current plan unless they are restrained from doing so, despite the large devia- 

tions between districts. 

24, Defendants Treen and Brown will conduct elections pursuant to Act] 

One and Act Twenty of the First Extraordinary Sessior. of 1981 unless restrained 

from doing so. Although these Acts were submitted to the Attorney General of 

the United States, neither has been approved by either the Attorney General of 

the United States or the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. 

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

25. The current plan of apportionment for both the Louisiana House 

of Representatives and the districts for Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. 

Congress violate the principles of one-person, one-vote under 42 USC 21981 and 

1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

26. Act One and Act Twenty of the First Extraordinary Session of 

1981 violate the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, as well as 

USC 881981 and 1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution in that the purpose and effect of the Acts is to dilute the voting 

strength of black citizens. 

Vii. EQUITY 

action is an actual controversy between parties having 

adverse legal interests of such immediacy and ity as to warrant a dec 

tory judgment. 

28. Plaintiffs have no adequate re 

parable injury unless injunctive relief is issued.  



PRAYER 

pray for relief as follows: 

That a District Court composed of three judges be convened pursuant] 
|} 

| 

That a declaratory judgment be issued that the current plan of 

japportionment of the Louisiana House of Representatives and the districts for 

Louisiana Representatives is unconstitutional, null and void. 

3. That a preliminary and permanent injunction issue prohibiting the 

elections under the current plans of apportionment. 

That a declaratory judgment be issued that Act One and Act Twenty 

flof the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 are illegal, unconstitutional, null 

Nand void. 

r 
>. That a preliminary and permanent injunction issue prohibiting the 

implementation of Act One and Act Twenty, including a prohibition on the holding 

of qualifications and/or elections under the Acts. 

6. That there be an expedited hearing on the merits of this case and 

ar approval of a legal and constitutional plan of apportionment for the 

House of Representatives and for the districts for Louisiana 

ongress 

That attorneys' fees be awarded to plaintiffs as prevailing parties 

and 

8. That there be such ogher relief as may be necessary and proper. 

  

Respectfully Submitted: