Defenses Response to Motion for Separate Trials; Plaintiffs Motion of Summary Judgment

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

versus NUMBER 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION B (D) (CO) 

* * * * * * 

RESPONSE TO MOTION 

FOR SEPARATE 

TRIALS 
  

The defendants in this matter have moved to hold separate trials 

on the two malapportionment claims presented by the Complaint filed in this   
matter (the Louisiana Congressional Districts and the Louisiana State House 

of Representatives Districts). 

Plaintiffs do not object to separate trials for the two claims, 

but specifically reserve the right to request the Court in the second trial 

to take judicial notice of any or all of the evidence presented in the first 

trial, to avoid repetition and redundancy. 

Respectfully submitted, 

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY A. HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

504/524-0016 

JACK GREENBERG 

JAMES M. NABRIT, III 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR. 

LANTI GUINIER 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

212/586-8397 

BY: Jaa 

R. JAMES KELLOGG 
         



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

"BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL : IVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 
i 

‘DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL. SECTION: H (D) (C) 
i 

| THREE JUDGE COURT CASE | :   

  

| 
| 

I CLASS ACTION 
i 

NOTICE OF MOTION 
  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Motion for Summary Judgment will 

| 

| 
| 

| 
{1 

| ilbe heard in this matter on May 26, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 
WILLIAM P., QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

  

LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc 

. 10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

||DATE: april 30, 1982 
| 
i 
} i 18] 

  

   



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

|| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

|| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

|! DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS 
  

NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who submit that the following material 

facts are uncontested in this matter:   
Ta   

i ; Bes Sat il Act No. 3 of the 1972 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, 

!lamended by Act. No. 697 of the 1976 session of the Legislature, established the 

il 
{Present congressional districts for the State of Lodtsthua: 

IZ. 

According to this legislative action, eight (8) districts were estab- 

z1sned for the State of Louisiana, with an ideal population of 455,398, accord- 

| ing to 1970 Census figures. 

III.   The population deviations and relative deviations of those eight 

| 
li ‘districts were as follows when they were enacted: 

1970 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (2) 
DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

  

-562 

-598 

+177 

-126 

-193 

+780 

-384 

+893 

  

IY. 
1 

With 1980 Census figures, these eight (8) congressional districts have   
{population and relative deviations as follows:  



1980 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (Z 

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

533,271 - 2.226 - 

461,802 -63,695 -1 

371;131 +45,634 + 

508,593 -16,904 - 

507,539 -17,958 - 

577,140 +51,643 

543,235 +17,738 

511,261 -14,236 

  

  
Ve.   When enacted, these eight (8) congressional districts had an overall 

||population deviation of .31 percent.     vt. ~ 

Now, these eight (8) congressional districts have an overall population | 

1B] | 
| 
|deviation of 21.95 percent. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 
WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 

LANI GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.. 

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

April 30, 1982 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 
I 
|| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 
{1 
{ 

'DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (OC) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

NOW INTC COURT come plaintiffs who move for summary judgment in this 

matter, declaring that the current congressional districts of Louisiana are   

i 
| 
| 
| 

| 

| 
| 
| 

i | 
| 

1] 

| 
| 

liunconstitutional. Plaintiffs make this motion on the basis of the pleadings 
H 
i} 

{in this matter, the statement of uncontested material facts, and the memorandum 

iin support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The grounds for this 

| : 
|motion are that there are no material facts in dispute and plaintiffs are 
i 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

| 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  
  

| 

| 
i - R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

i WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY . 
A STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

I STANLEY HALPIN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

LANI GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs   DATE: April 30, 1982 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been 

|| opposing counsel by mailing same postage prepaid via U.S. postal 

30thday of April »- 1982, 

   



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

\| DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C). 

THREE COURT CASE JUDGE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

I. 

THE LAW ON CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT 
  

Congressional reapportionment requirements derive from the United 

‘States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, 

Ld ‘which applies to reapportionment of the state legislatures. 

The Supreme Court has applied a much stricter population apportionment 
h 

!|standard in congressional redistricting cases than it had in legislative reappor- 

  

tionment cases. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 

t 

} 
| 

{ AJ 

L.Ed. 2nd. 519, 1969, N 

In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that the State must achieve 

|| precise mathematical equality. See 394 U.S. 530-531. 

Thus, the Supreme Court has rejected congressional redistricting plans 

| with deviations of 13.1 percent (Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 39 8.Ct. 

4 

  

/, 1234, 22 L.Ed. 2nd. 535, 1969); 5.97 percent (Kirkpatrick, supra), and 4.13     
| 

| percent (see White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed. 2nd. 
  

II. 

THE. FACTS OF THESE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 
  

As was pointed out in the plaintiff's statement of uncontested 

|| when the present congressional districts were drawn, they had an overall 

jon overall population deviation of 21.95 percent. 

| 

| i 

| 
| 

This population deviation is reached by calculating the "norm", 

1 

| tion deviation of .3l percent. Now,' the Louisiana Congressional District 

| 

‘populations the size of the ideal district, and then subtracting the difference  



iln population between the number of persons in the district and the norm. This 

| 
1 

i 

il 
{ 
1 
| 

| 
arrives at a population variation of raw numbers. This population variance is 

i 
I |} ols ; : Bal og 
{| then divided by the population norm to arrive at a percentage of deviation. If 
| i 

the district under examination is larger (has more people) than the norm, the 

'ivariance is a plus variance, and the district is "underrepresented". If the 
H 

district under examination is smaller (has fewer people) than the norm, the 

jjvariance is a minus variance and the district is "overrepresented''. The span 

of variances, or total deviation from population equality, is calculated by add- 

| ing the largest plus variance and the largest minus variance. This is how the 

overall population deviations were arrived at. 

Therefore, an examination of the present congressional districts in 

Louisiana leads to the following result: Five of the Louisiana congressional 

districts have negative deviations, and three of the districts have positive   deviations. The most extreme negative deviation is in Congressional Di 
iH 

where that district is found to have 63,695 fewer persons than they should have.   t 
i 

i 
| 

i 
I 

i |The greatest positive deviation is in Congressional District 6 
J 

| 

i, people more than the norm dictates. 
! 

ii This means that the people in Congressional Districts 1 

I 
||have a greater voice in Congress than the people in Congressional Districts 

I's and 7. 

IIL. 

CONCLUSION 

As is noted above, the Supreme Court has said that congressional 

districts should be as mathematically equal as possible. In Louisiana, the 

||present Congressional Districts are clearly out of synch with this mandate. 

| They should therefore he declared unconstitutional by this Court. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

    R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 
STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

E NI GUINIER 

OLEON B. WILLIAMS 
P 

egal Defense and Educational Fund, 

}0 Columbus Circl 

uite 2030 
ew York, New York 10019 

ttorneys for Plaintiffs 

R
A
R
 

(1)
e} 

5 OQ
 

wm
 

—
 

“A
 

A