Memo from Jim Kellogg to Major v Treen (Congressional) RE Status Conference

    MEMORANDUM 
  

Major v. Treen (Congressional) 

Jim Kellogg Rg 

Status Conference 

June 25, 1932 

Yesterday a Status Conference was held in this matter, at the request 

of Circuit Judge Politz and District Judge Cassibry. The Conference 

was held before District Judges Collins and Cassibry with Robert 

Kutchins (representing Marty Feldman, special counsel to the Governor) , 

Steve Scheckman and myself. Mr. Feldman, David Poynter (Clerk of the 

House) and Kenneth DeJean (Attorney General's Office) participated by 

conference telephone call. Judges Politz and Cassibry were concerned 

that this case come to trial at earliest possible opportunity. They 

began by suggesting that we go to trial next week (week of June 2%) 

so that a decision could be rendered prior to the date of qualifications | 

(July 5-9). They were especially concerned that persons running for 

congressional office know the districts from which they would be elected 

at the earliest possible date. 

The parties were unanimous that a trial next week would be impossible 

as a practical matter. I stressed several factors: foremost in my 

mind was the fact that the new Voting Rights Act has been approved by 

both Houses of Congress and awaits the President's signature. Although 

we don't know for sure whether the Act becomes immediately effective, 

or will be effective on August 6 with the expiration of the old law, 

the new standard will govern as a practical matter. I stated that I 

felt sure we needed to address the constitutionality of the new law, 

the legislative history, evidence which can be presented, and so forth 

under the new law, and that, since this will probably be one of the 

first cases under the new Act, we had to be sure that the record was 

adequately developed for bossible review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  



Memorandum (Major v. Treen) 

Page 2 of 3 

The defendants made the additional point that the Legislature is in 

its final two weeks. The President of the Senate is on trial in 

Federal Court in New Orleans on criminal charges and hence cannot   
participate. If a trial were to be held next week, we would need the 

active participation of the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representat 

tives, the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House of Representa 

tives, the President Pro Temp of the Senate, and numerous staff oibiorals 

Their participation in a Federal Court trial at this point in the 

Legislative Session would mean that, as a practical matter, many 

Legislative items could not be addressed during the regular session, 

and a special session would have to be called. Judge Cassibry recognized 

both sets of arguments and stated that he feels that they are sufficient 

reasons for putting off the trial. 

Trial is now scheduled for the week of August 2-6. The defendants   were completely taken by surprise that a new standard will be used, and 

they argued off the top of their heads that the new law will not be 

retroactive. I asked that in order to eliminate confusion and have a 

fully developed record, we be allowed to brief the issues surrounding 

the new law: its constitutionality, its retroactivity, its change of 

standard, etc. We have until July 12 to do so. The defendants response | 

  is due on July 19, and the Judges will attempt to give us a response 

before trial. 

The last day of the Legislature is July 12, so for all practical pur- 

poses, the Governor will be available for his deposition after that 

time. We have the Governor in an. interesting position at this point: 

If he claims that we have to meet the much more rigorous intent standard, 

his history on racial isgggs becomes relevant and admissable; if he 

doesn't want that informagjon brought out in a court record, he almost 

inevitably is going to have to go along with our position that the 

effects standard is the appropriate one. It will be interesting to 
’ 

see how he resolves this questioning. 

   



Memorandum (Major v. Treen) 

Page 3 of 3 

We still have an outstanding Request for Protection of Documents. 

I will follow-up on this Request in the next few days. I also intend 

to send to the Department of Justice a request under the Freedom of 

Information Act.