Correspondence from Guste to Ganucheau (Clerk)

    W ILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

(*tate of Xouisiatta 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

December 10, 1987 

Hon. Gilbert F. Ganucheau 
Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, La. 70130 

Re: No. 87-3463, Chisom v. Edwards  

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

7TH FLOOR 
2-3-4 LOYOLA BUILDING 
NEW ORLEANS 70112-2096 

Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants has called to your 
attention a recent 11th Circuit case involving Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act. In Dillard V . Crenshaw County, Alabama, No. 
86-7799 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 1987), the court of appeals stated 
that : 

Nowhere in the language of Section 2 nor in 
the legislative history does Congress 
condition the applicability of Section 2 on 
the function performed by an elected 
official. The language is only and 
uncompromisingly premised on the fact Of 
nomination or election. 

Slip Op. at 358. 

However, this statement by the court must be viewed 
within the scope of the issues which the 11th Circuit faced. 
What is omitted from the court's consideration is that Section 2 
is premised upon the fact of nomination or election of a 
representative official.  

The court did not need to make this further 
distinction because the elected post at issue was that of 
county commission chairperson -- a representative official. 



Honorable Gilbert F. Ganucheau 
December 10, 1897 
Page 2 

The statement was made in the context of a discussion 
of the executive/legislative function of the commission 
chairperson. Read in its proper context, the implication of 
the passage is that Congress does not condition the 
applicability of Section 2 on whether the representative 
official performs legislative or executive functions. (Or, as 
the court stated in its conclusion, "amended Section 2 does not 
distinguish between roles within a commission." Slip Op. at 
361.) 

The court further noted that the election of an 
official "should not be assessed in a vacuum, but rather in its 
full context." Dillard, Slip Op. at 358. The court goes on to 
address the •defendant's premise that the office of chairperson 
is predominantly administrative and analagous to a single 
member office not subject to proportional representation 
issues. The court noted that certain officials such as 
sheriff's, probate judges, and tax collectors are single-person 
officers elected by direct vote. As such, "non-proportional 
elections are inherent to their nature...". Dillard, Slip Op. 
at 359. Defendants- appellees submit that, similarly, judicial 
elections are not subject to Section 2 provisions. By their 
very nature, judgeships are not representative offices and, 
thus, cannot be subject to proportional representation 
requirements. See Wells v. Edwards, 347 F. Supp. 453 (M.D. La. 
1972), affirmed, 409 U.S. 1095, 93 S.Ct. 904 (1973). 

Plaintiffs- appellants are attempting to give an 
overly broad interpretation of the holding in Dillard v.  
Crenshaw County, Ala. which extends beyond the scope of the 
issues before the 11th Circuit and which would be at variance 
with the ruling in Wells v. Edwards that the right of 
representation does not apply to judicial elections. Since the 
decision in Dillard does not reach the issues before this 
court, defendants- appellees submit that the 11th Circuit 
holding does not apply to the facts of this case. 

Respectfully submitted, 

\\ WILLIAM J. GUSTE, _x7R. 
ATTORNEY GEN d ... 

DALL 
AS ISTANT A TORNEY GENERAL 
LO ISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
234 LOYOLA AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112 
TELEPHONE: (504) 568-5575 

Counsel for Defendants-
Appellees 

cc: All Counsel of record.