Response to Motion for United States to Lift Stay of Discovery

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Pla'ntiff-intervenor : Civil Action No. 
86-4075 

versus 

: Section A 
CHARLES E. ROEMER, et al., 

Defendants. 

R S ONSE TO MOTION FOR UNITED STATES 
TO LIFT STAY OF DISCOVERY 

Now into Court, through undersigned counsel, 

come CHARLES E. "BUDDY" ROEMER, in_ his capacity as 

Governor of the State of Louisiana; FOX McKEITHEN, in 

his capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; and 

JERRY M. FOWLER, in his capacity as Commissioner of 

Elections of the State of Louisiana, who, responding to 

the Motion for the United States to Lift Stay of 

Discovery as heretofore herein filed, show: 

1. 

A Status Conference occurred herein on 

November 21st, 1988 provoked by a request on behalf of 



the plaintiffs who sought a continuance of all matters 

herein so that they, the plaintiffs, might more 

fruitfully spend their time in pursuing their cause 

through deliberations with the Governor's Special Task 

Force on Judicial Selection, rather than preparing for 

trial herein. Counsel for Defendants stayed moot as to 

this request, and only spoke after the Court granted 

the request. It was the position of the defendants 

that if the plaintiffs wanted to seek relief through 

the Committee, that the defendants should be put to no 

further expense and for that reason the suggestion by 

the defendants that the case be frozen in its present 

status was granted by the Court. 

2. 

If the plaintiffs now wish to proceed to 

trial, defendants have no objection to the granting of 

such wish. However, the proposed Order herein would 

require that the defendants submit their expert report 

within three days of the entry of a proposed Order. It 

will obviously be necessary for these experts to 

re-evaluate all of their records and work and such 

re-evaluation cannot be accomplished within three days. 

At best the earliest that a report could be filed 



herein' would be on the 25th day of January, 1989, 

assuming that the Motion herein will be granted and 

thereby cause the lifting of the stay. 

3. 

Defendants further show that movants' 

statement that the undersigned counsel for the 

defendants had refused to give his consent to the 

proposed Order is absolutely false. Never were the 

contents of this Order discussed, particulaily with 

reference to any three-day deadline. Counsel for the 

United States has on several occasions attempted to 

make the State of Louisiana stipulate that it will 

abandon the challenged multi-judge district system. 

This the defendants have-consistently advised counsel 

for the United States that it would not do. Upon the 

last such statement and upon counsel for the United 

States' response that if the State would not do so, 

then counsel for the United States would start 

discovery again, defendants advised counsel for the 

United States that it should do whatever it felt it 

wanted to do. The United States itself has conceded 

that there is no judicial guidance concerning the 

application of Section 2 to judicial elections. In its 



amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court, 

in this same cause, at page 10, fn 8, the United States 

stated: 

Subjecting elected judges to Section 2 
coverage does not mean, of course, that 
Section 2 necessarily applies to judicial 
elections in precisely the same way as it 
applies to other elections. The differing 
function of judges from other elected 
officials may influence the factors to be 
considered in determining if a Section 2 
violation has occurred, and what would be an 
appropriate remedy. These difficult issues 
are not presented in this case, since the 
court of appeals' decision dealt only with 
the question of whether Section 2 covers 
judicial elections at all. See U.S. Amicus 
Br. 19-21. Questions of how Section 2 should 
be applied will arise when there is a 
specific application of Section 2 to judicial 
elections (e.g., on the remand in this case). 

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that this case 

proceed to trial and that in the court thereof, 

reasonable dates be entertained considering the 

importance of the case and its obvious effect on many 

other cases pending within the judicial system. 



Dated: December 30th, 1988. 

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Louisiana Department of 
234 Loyola Avenue, 7th 
New Orleans, Louisiana 

(504) 568-5575 

M. TRUMAN WOODWARD, JR. 
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2300 
New Orleans, LA 70130 
(504) 569-7100 

BLAKE G. ARATA 
201 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70130 
(504) 582-1111 

B: 

RO ERT G. PUGH 
L-ad Counsel 

330 Marshall Street, Suite 1200 
Shreveport, LA 71101 

(318) 227-2270 
Federal I.D. No. 3336 

Justice 
Floor 
70112 

A. R. CHRISTOVICH 
1900 American Bank Bldg. 
New Orleans, LA 70130 
(504) 561-5700 

MOISE W. DENNERY 
601 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, LA 70130 
(504) 586-1241 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 



CERTIFICATE  

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and 

foregoing Response to Motion for United States to Lift Stay 

of Discovery has been served on all counsel of record• by 

depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage 

prepaid, properly addressed. 

All parties required to be served have been 

served. 

A courtesy copy has been mailed to George M. 

Strickler, Jr., Esquire, counsel of Record for Amicus, 

Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., whose Motion to Intervene has not, 

to the knowledge of undersigned counsel, as yet been 

granted. 

Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, this the 

30th day of December, 1988. 

Pugh, 
Lead Counsel