Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for a District Court of Three Judges; Legal Research on Justices of the Supreme Court

    t 
• • 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

RONALD CHISOM, MARIE BOOKMAN, 
WALTER WILLARD, MARC MORIAL, 
LOUISIANA VOTER REGISTRATION/ 
EDUCATION CRUSADE, AND HENRY A. 
DILLON, III 

Plaintiffs 

VERSUS 

EDWIN EDWARDS, in his capacity 
as Governor of the State of 
Louisiana; JAMES H. BROWN, in 
his capacity as Secretary of 
the State of Louisiana; and 
JERRY M. FOWLER, in his capa-
city as Commissioner of Elec-
tions of the State of Louisiana 

Defendants 

CIVIL ACTION 

NUMBER 86-4075 

SECTION A 

MAGISTRATE 6 

CLASS ACTION 

THREE JUDGE COURT 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR  
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES  

The Plaintiffs petition this Court to convene a dis-

trict court of three judges to adjudicate their, claim that a 

dilution of black voting strength results from the present 

system of electing Louisiana Supieme Court Justices from the 

First Supreme Curt Dtstrict. - Plaintiffs assert that they are 

entitled to a three judge court pursuant to 28 U.SvC. 

§2284(a). (Amended Complaint, para. VIII(1), pg. 6.) Section 

2284(a), however, does not support the claim. 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU 
FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 
-ATTORNEY WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY-



A three judge court is mandated by Section 2284(a) in 

only three instances. The first is when a three-judge panel is 

required by an Act of Congress. That is inapplicable here 

because the case at bar is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1973 

which does not provide for such a panel. (Suit was originally 

brought pursuant to §1973c which does provide for a three-judge 

panel but that citation was deleted by the Amended Complaint 

filed September 30, 1986, and citation to Section 1973 was 

substituted. It cannot be argued that the requirement in 

§1973c applies to all subsections of §1973 because Congress 

also specifically mandated the panel for suits brought pursuant 

to subsections 1973ss-2, 1973b(a), 1973h, and 1973bb-2(a)(2). 

None of these is alleged herein.) 

Section 2284(a) of Title 28 also provides for a dis-

trict court of three judges "when an action is filed chal-

lenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congres-

sional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legis-

lative body." The Complaint itself negates the plaintiffs' 

entitlement pursuant to the first phrase inasmuch as the ap-

portionment complained of is of a Supreme Court District, not a 

congressional district. (Amehded Complaint para. I., pg. 1 and 

para. VI,_ pg. 5.) 

The third ground for entitlement also is inapplicable 

because the challenge is limited to the First Supreme Court 

District, not the entire state. (See Amended Complaint, para. 

I, pg. 1; para. VI, pg. 5; and para. VIII, pg.6.) It is not 

relevant that the method . for electing the First District 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU 
FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 
-ATTORNEY WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY-



• 

Justices is provided for in a state statute. (See La. Revised 

Statutes 13:101 a copy of which is attached hereto.) As the 

United States Supreme Court held in Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 

97. 87 S.Ct. 1544 (1967), since the statute at issue "is one of 

limited application, concerning only a particular county 

involved in the litigation, a three judge court was improperly 

convened". 387 U.S. at 104. 

Note that the claim for a three-judge panel in Moody  

was brought under 42 U.S.C. §2281, which has since been re-

pealed. The decision is relevant, however, because the Supreme 

Court interpreted §2281 to require a three-judge panel "only 

when a state statute of general and statewide application is 

sought to be enjoined." 387 U.S. at 101. The Moody, interpre-

tation of §2281 is consistent with the language of §2284(a). 

That §2281 cases provide precedent for a §2284(a) analysis is 

recognized in footnote 36 of 65 The Georgetown Law Journal 971, 

The New Three-Judge Courts Of Reapportionment and Continuing  

Problems Of Three-Judge Court Procedure (1977). as follows: 

"[I]n limiting the new statute to apportionment of statewide 

bodies, the Congress accepted the basic rationale of cases 

holding repealed section 2281 inapplicable to state statutes of 

only local application.. 

Defendants' position is further supported by the de-

cision of the United States Supreme Court in Board of Regents  

of the University of Texas System V. New Left Education  

._11 

Pro • ect, 404 U.S. 541, 92 S.Ct. 652 (1972). There the Court 
0 

determined that because rules of the Board of Regents extended 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU 
FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 

• -ATTORNEY WILLIAM P. 0.1.V7.1•Cl• 



Williams, Jr. in his article at 65 The Georgetown Law Journal 

971 (1977), entitled The New Three-Judge Courts Of Reappor-

tionment and Continuing Problems of Three-Judge Court  

Procedure. Professor Williams suggests that 

In construing the term "legislative 
body," the courts should focus upon the 
class of elected bodies that have official 
power to enact positiVe law through some 
form other than adjudication. Thus con-
strued, the statute will exclude advisory 
groups, constitutional conventions, courts, 
and executive officers. (Emphasis added.) 

65 The Georgetown Law Journal at 980. 

CONCLUSION  

The statutes providing for the convening of 

three-judge panels have long been regarded as "technical in the 

strict sense of the term and to be applied as such," Phillips  

V. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 251, 61 S.Ct. 480, 483, (1941); 

Swift & Company v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111, 124, 86 S.Ct. 258, 

265 (1965). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recognized in 

Concerned Citizens of Vicksburg V. Sills, 567 F.2d 646 (5th 

Cir. 1978), in f.n. 1, that the 1976 repeal of 28 U.S.C. §§2281 

and 2282 and the revision of 28 U.S.C. §2284 "significantly 

narrowed the range of cases for which three-judge district 

courts are required...." That recognition is consistent with 

the view that the three-judge statutes had outlived their use-

fulness and should be construed as narrowly as possible. See, 

for example, Williams, The New Three-Judge Courts Of Reappor-

tionment and Continuing Problems of Three-Judge Court  

,Procedure, 65 The Georgetown Law :journal 971, 972 (1977); 67 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU , 
'FOR ,,Y111.113 :.INFORMATION FROM 

;.; "A P. QUIGLEY-



to only a fraction of campuses in the Texas system of higher 

public education they could "scarcely be described as matters 

of statewide concern or expressions of a statewide policy ..." 

404 U.S. at 544. Based on that finding, the Court held that 

§2281 of Title 28 did not require the convening of a 

three-judge panel. 

Even were the challenged election that of a statewide 

body, a state Supreme Court clearly is not a legislative body. 

That alone is sufficient to deny the three-judge panel inasmuch 

as §2284(a) requires both a "statewide" and a "legislative 

body" before a panel is required. 

"Legislative body" is defined in Wright, Miller, and 

Cooper, 17 Federal Practice and Procedure, §4235, pg. 391, as 

follows: "(A] 'legislative body,' for purposes of this lan-

guage, is apparently any statewide elected body performing 

governmental functions that are not almost wholly judicial or 

wholly executive and to which the 'one man - one vote' prin-

ciple extends". 

The United States Supreme Court has determined that 

the one man - one vote principle does not extend to the elec-

tion of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices. Wells v. Edwards, 

347 F.Supp. 453 (M.D. La. 1972). aff'd. per curiam 409 U.S. 

1095, 93 S.Ct. 904 (1973). Thus, the definition of "legis-

lative body" contained in 17 Federal Practice and Procedure, 

clearly excludes a State Supreme Court. 

Courts are also excluded from coverage by the defini-

tion o "legislative . body" offered by Professor .Napoleon 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT Ti) YOU 
-4- . FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 

-ATTORNEY WILLIAM P. O.UIGLEY-



F.R.D. 135, Recent Reforms In The Federal Judicial Structure -  

Three-Judge District Courts And Appellate Review (1976); 52 

F.R.D. 293, Three-Judge Courts: See How They Run, (1971). 

With this background and for these reasons, the plain-

tiffs' request for the convening of a district court of three 

judges should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

OF COUNSEL: 

M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Esquire 
1100 Whitney Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 581-3333 

Blake G. Arata, Esquire 
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 
(504) 581-1636 

A.R. Christovich, Jr., Esquire 
1900 American Bank Bldg. 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 561-5700 

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. 
\ ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Moise W. Dennery, Esquire 
21st Floor, Pan American Life Center 
601 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
(504) 586-1241 

DALL 
AS ISTANT AT ORNEY GENERAL 

co 
EAVEL T. BROOKS 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
234 LOYOLA AVENUE, SUITE 700 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112-2096 
TELEPHONE: (504) 568-5575 

Ci:RTIF1CATF OF SERVICE 
I certify a copy of Coe fo!-egoing ben 
served ;7!! parti,::.z by ma;:ii":3 same 
to _ II each prep.id 
this_ 

c‘) 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU 
-FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 
•AITORNEY WILLIAM F.3.:GUIGLEY-

I; - 



JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT R.S. 13:101 
Ch. 2 

Library References 

Courts €=.58. 
C.J.S. Courts § 142. 

§ 76. [Blank] 

History and Source of Law 

Acts 1972, No. 84, § 1, enacted an R.S. ted as R.S. 13:72.1 on authority of R.S. 
13:76, relating to the declaration of state 24:253. 
law to federal courts, which was redesigna-

PART II. JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT 

Cross References 

Composition of supreme court, see LSA-Const. Art. 5, § 3 et seq. 
Removal or suspension from office, see LSA-Const. Art. 5, § 25. 

§ 101. Supreme court district; justices 

The state shall be divided into six supreme court districts and the 
supreme court shall be composed of justices from the said districts as set 
forth below: 

(1) First district. The parishes of Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, 
and Jefferson shall compose the first district, from which two justices 
shall be elected. 

(2) Second district. The parishes of Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Clai-
borne, Bienville, Natchitoches, Red River, DeSoto, Winn, Vernon, and 
Sabine shall compose the second district, from which one justice shall be 
elected. 

(3) Third district. The parishes of Rapides, Grant, Avoyelles, Lafa-
yette, Evangeline, Allen, Beauregard, Jefferson Davis, Calcasieu, Camer-
on, and Acadia shall compose the third district, from which one justice 
shall be elected. 

(4) Fourth district. The parishes of Union, Lincoln, Jackson, Caldwell, 
Ouachita, Morehouse, Richland, Franklin, West Carroll, East Carroll, 
Madison, Tensas, Concordia, LaSalle, and Catahoula shall compose the 
fourth district, from which one justice shall be elected. 

(5) Fifth district. The parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton 
Rouge, West Feliciana, East Feliciana, St. Helena, Livingston, Tangipa-
hoa, St. Tammany, Washington, Iberville, Pointe Coupee, and St. Landry 
shall compose the fifth district, from which one justice shall be elected. 

(6) Sixth district. The parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, Iberia, Terre-
bonne, Lafourche, Assumption, Ascension, St. John the Baptist, St. 
James, St. Charles, and Vermilion shall compose the sixth district, from 
which one justice shall be elected. 

Added by Acts 1975, No. 51, § 1. 
47 

THIS COPY IS BEING SENT TO YOU 
FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM 
-ATTORNEY WILLIAM P. 0.1JIGLEY-