Comment Submitted to Justice Dept Objecting to Plan of US House of Reps w Appendices and cover letter

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

TELEPHONE: 504-524-0016 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN R. JAMES KELLOGG 

Va foole ZO Lani oe ——— 

ve § The ayn ‘one. Comme C 

o Not he. IC Lon wl wo 4 Cu tnt, 
NS 

/ nll 

 



~ 

COMMENT SUBMITTED TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 
VOTING RIGHTS SECTION 

OBJECTING TO REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN OF 
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REPRESENTED BY: 

QQ 
H. 

WILLIAM R. QUIGLEY 

igley & Scheckman 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

  
  

EVEN CKMAN 

Quigley & Scheckman 
631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

SUBMITTED BY: 

DIANA BAJOIE 
JOHNNY JACKSON 
JON JOHNSON 
BARBARA MAJOR 
SURVIVAL COALITION 

fo Qoss Vella 
  

J KELLOGG Y( 
ik Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

STANLEY LPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
Telephone: (504) 524-0016 

7 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
18 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10619 
Telephone: (212) 586-8397  



INTRODUCTION 

SUMMARY 

HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 

A. INTRODUCTION 

B. OVERALL PICTURE OF DISCRIMINATION 

C. VOTING DISCRIMINATION 

D. HISTORY OF FEDERAL AND 
JUDICIAL DISCRIMINATION 

E. CONCLUSION 

F. HISTORY FOOTNOTES 

LOUISIANA POPULATION CHANGE 

LOUISIANA'S SUBMITTED PLAN 

A. ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA PLAN 

B. DESCRIPTION 

C. CONCLUSION 

OBJECTIONS 

A. PROCESS OF 1981 REDISTRICTING 

B. ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

1. POPULATION DEVIATIONS 

BLACK POPULATION/REGISTRATION 

CROSSING PARISH LINES 

DISTRICT SHAPES 

CONCLUSION 

HISTORY OF DAVE TREEN 

l. FLYERS 

- 

 



D. OBJECTIONS BY LAWMAKERS 

E. COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANS 
REJECTED BY JUSTICE 

CONCLUSION 

APPENDIX 

MAPS OF HOW NEW ORLEANS AFFECTED 

A PRIOR DISTRICTS 

B NEW DISTRICTS ("DONALD DUCK" PLAN) 

C NUNEZ PLAN 

D HENDERSON PLAN 

NEWS ARTICLES 

NUNEZ PLAN 

HENDERSON PLAN 

i 
i 
! 
| 
: 
I 
' 
[ 
’ 
| 

| 
I 
1 
! 
' 
I 
' 
I 

a
 

)
  



A
 

ER
 

S
E
 

E
E
 

u
N
 

P
E
 

aE
 

B
s
 

u
n
 

I 
R 
I 
i 
I 
' 
I 
i 
J 
i 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In November of 1981, the Louisiana Legislature, under 

pressure from Governor David Treen, adopted a new plan for 

redistricting the eight United States Congressional 

Districts in Louisiana. 

The plan that was adopted fragmented minority 

residential areas and had the effect and the intention of 

diluting the voting strength of the minority citizens of the 

State of Louisiana. 

This comment will outline the various reasons why the 

Justice Department should object to the Congressional 

Redistricting Plan passed by the Louisiana State 

Legislature. It will become clear that the State of 

Louisiana is unable to shoulder its burden of proving that 

the challenged plan fairly reflects the strength of minority 

voting power as it presently exists. 

This objection is submitted by several people. 

Representative Diana Bajoie is a member of the Subcommittee 

of Reapportionment of the Louisiana House of 

Representatives. Representatives Johnny Jackson and Jon 

Johnson are also elected by the citizens of the State of 

Louisiana and participated in this process of redistricting. 

Barbara Major is a community leader of Louisiana and the 

Chairperson of the Survival Coalition. The Survival 

Coalition is a state-wide grassroots organization of low and 

moderate income people. They object to the present plan  



i 
[ 
; 
[ 
I 
i 
i 
I 
d 
1 
! 
I 
| 
i 
I 
[ 
! 
I 
) 

because of the injustice that it perpetrated on black 

citizens of the State of Louisiana. 

This comment outlines the process by which this unfair 

reapportionment was reached; alternative plans that were 

before the Legislature; the reasons why a special district 

for the City of New Orleans is appropriate as the center of 

a district; the history and background of Governor Dave 

Treen (who was the primary obstacle toward achieving full 

black representation in the Congressional races in 

Louisiana); the objections by lawmakers, both white and 

black; and final arguments in light of other decisions by 

the Justice Department as to why this plan should be 

rejected. 

The inescapable conclusion of this comment is that both 

the effect and the intent of the legislative redistricting 

of the eight Louisiana Congressional Districts is to dilute 

the political influence of black citizens in Louisina. 

 



II. SUMMARY 

In 1980, Louisiana had 4,203,972 citizens. Of this 

number 2,911,243 are white (69.2%) and 1,237,263 are black 

(29.4%). Because of its population, Louisiana is entitled 

to eight Representatives to the United States House of 

Representatives. One would expect, all else being equal 

that at least two of the Louisiana Representatives should be 

elected from black majority districts. 

In November of 1981, both the Louisiana House of 

Representatives and the Louisiana Senate passed 

Congressional redistricting plans which created one black 

population majority district in the State of Louisiana. 

This district was composed primarily of the Parish of 

Orleans, (which is contiguous with the City of New Orleans). 

By threatening a veto of the plan passed by the Legislature, 

Governor David Treen forced the abandonment of the plan and 

the Legislature then created eight white majority 

congressional districts. 

The plan passed by the House and Senate was a plan 

which avoided the historic dilution of black voting strength 

in the State of Louisiana. Governor Treen threatened a veto 

of any plan which created a black majority district and 

forced the Legislature to come up with a plan which split 

the districts. This action had the effect of negating the 

ability of minority citizens of the State of Louisiana to be 

able to have at least one district in which they were a  



population majority. 

The City of New Orleans, which was the core of the 

black majority district, has a population of 557,482 persons 

of which 55.2% are black and 42.5% are white. The 

statistically ideal population of one of Louisiana's 

Congressional districts is 525,497. A New Orleans district 

would be compact, have a community of interest, and have 

historical, traditional, geographic and political boundaries 

which are not only rational but compelling. Instead of 

allowing the legislative will to be done, the Governor of 

Louisiana was able to get a plan passed which took a black 

population concentration and split it up into two districts 

and submerged the majority of New Orleans into a minority of 

two districts. 

In order to analyze the effect and the intent of this 

dilution of minority voting strength, it is important to 

examine the background of Governor Dave Treen. Governor 

Treen has always been an opponent of equality and justice 

for minority citizens, not only in Louisiana but around the 

United States. Early in his political career he identified 

himself very closely with the States Rights Movement. As a 

Congressman, he voted against Civil Rights legislation that 

was pending before the United States Congress. Other 

examples set out in the body of this comment also indicate 

the sort of political forces Governor Dave Treen has 

historically represented.  



A review of the newspaper coverage at the time reveals 

that black lawmakers, including those who submit this 

comment, objected loudly, openly and repeatedly to any 

dilution of black voting strength in the Congressional 

redistricting process. In addition to objections by black 

lawmakers, there were objections that were noted by several 

white lawmakers as well. The Legislature, in finally 

agreeing to Governor Treen's dilution of the black vote, was 

fully aware of the discriminatory impact that the new 

reapportionment had on the black citizens of Louisiana. 

In light of the objections by the Justice Department to 

the Senate and House plan of the State of Virginia, as well 

as the objection lodged against the New York plan, the 

Department of Justice should also object to this 

congressional redistricting of Louisiana. There is clearly 

a splitting of the black vote; the Legislature and the 

Governor were fully aware of the discriminatory impact of 

this splitting of the black vote; and there were available 

alternatives to the adopted plan which avoided the extreme 

dilution of black voting strength that is contained in the 

plan proffered by the State of Louisiana. 

For these reasons, the proposed redistricting of the 

State of Louisiana's eight Congressional Districts should be 

objected to by the United States Justice Department.  



III. LOUISIANA - HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 

IN VOTING RIGHTS 

A. INTRODUCTION 

Ever since Louisiana became a state, on April 30, 1812, 

its government has had a history of making decisions that 

were racially discriminatory and furthered the institution 

of segregation. Time and again Louisiana has attempted to 

block and frustrate the quest for full participation in the 

political, social, and economic systems of the State. 

This section of this objection will briefly sketch the 

context in which this latest action by Louisiana should be 

evaluated. 

B. OVERALL PICTURE OF DISCRIMINATION 
IN LOUISIANA 

Louisiana's first Constitution, adopted in 1812, 

stipulated that voting was restricted to "free white male" 

members of the population. (Article II, Section 8). Free 

persons of color enjoyed no political rights whatsoever, and 

slaves were denied even the opportunity to learn to read and 

write. 

Not content with this, the Louisiana legislature in 

1842 prohibited any free black persons from coming into the 

state. Act 123 of the 1842 Louisiana Acts provided that any 

"free Negroe" who came into Louisiana would be immediately 

jailed until they could be sent out of the state. Act 315 

of the 1852 Louisiana legislature demanded that any  



- "White Supremacy Constitution. 

slaveowner who wished to emancipate his slaves had to put up 

the expenses for shipping the freed slave to Africa. And 

finally in 1857 the legislature in Act 69, prohibited 

emancipation all together. 

After the Civil War, slavery was abolished by the 1864 

Constitutional Convention. Black citizens got full 

citizenship and the right to vote. 

However, once the federal presence was removed from the 

state, the barriers began again to be erected. 

The 1890 legislature passed Act III which provided for 

"separate but equal" accomodations, in rail service. It was 

under this act that Homer Adolph Plessy was arrested on June 

7, 1982. His conviction was upheld in the landmark case of 

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and separate but 

equal was the law of the land until 1954. 

C. VOTING DISCRIMINATION IN LOUISIANA 

Just prior to Homer Plessy's challenge to "separate but 

equal” rail service, Louisiana was moving to deny black 

citizens the political advances made during Reconstruction. 

In 1898, a Constitutional Convention met to create a 

nl The convention set up 

strict literacy and property prerequisites to registration 

for voting that would limit black registration. The 

convention then invented a "grandfather clause," which 

exempted any male whose father or grandfather could vote  



before January of 1867. (See 1898 Louisiana Constitution, 

Article 197, Section 5). 

This proved effective. In January of 1897 there were 

130,344 black citizens registered to vote. After the new 

constitution went into effect, all but 5,320 black 

registered voters had been eliminated - a net loss of 

125,024 voters? 
With the 1921 Constitution, Louisiana again moved 

aggressively to prohibit black citizens from fully 

participating in the electoral process. Article 8, Section 

l(c) instituted a "good character" clause and an 

"understanding” clause to block registration by black 

citizens. Anyone in a common law marriage or who had an 

illegitimate child, or any other character "problem" 

apparent to the registrar of voters could be denied 

registration. The "understanding" clause demanded that upon 

request of the local registrar, a person could be denied the 

right to register if they could not give a reasonable 

interpretation of any section of the Louisiana or U.S. 

Constitution. 

These obstacles to voter registration were operative 

until 1963 when a three-judge court struck them down. U. S, 

v. Louisiana, 225 F.Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963) affirmed 3840 

U.S. 145 (1965).  



G
E
 

2
 
a
 

=
 

=
a
 

A 

D. THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL AND 
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION 

Louisiana has actively fought every advance made by 

black citizens since 1812, When an opportunity presented 

itself for progress, Louisiana fashioned a new barrier. 

Only by active use of the judicial system has any progress 

been possible in the area of voting rights and 

reapportionment, 

In "Voting Rights: A Case Study of Madison Parish 

Louisiana" 38 University of Chicago Law Review 726, a 

research project of the American Bar Association shows 

clearly and in great detail the necessity of federal 

intervention by the Justice Department and the federal 

courts in securing and protecting the right to vote in 

Louisiana. 

Every advancement towards equal justice has come about 

only after a substantial battle. Louisiana voting rights 

cases and other actions to end discrimination are legion. A 

few that illustrate: 

Byrd v, Brice, 104 F.Supp. 442 (W.D. La. 1952) - stopping 

use of voucher system to prevent registration in Bossier 

Parish; 

Wyche v, Ward, #4628, (W.D. La. 1954) - barriers to voter 

registration in Madison Parish; 

Ravis va. N.. 0. Public Service, (E.D, La, 1957) ~- 

desegregation of N. O. streetcars;  



[ 

U.S. v. Manning, 205 F.Supp. 172 (W.D. La. 1962) - voting 

discrimination in East Carroll Parish; 

U,8, v., ward, 222 P.Supp. 617 (W.D., La. 1963) - voucher 

system in Madison Parish; 

Brown V.. Post, 297 P.Supp. 66 (W.D. La. 1968) ~- 

discrimination in absentee ballots; 

OJeSa.. Vu. . Post, 297 F.Supp. 46 (w.D. La. 1969) ~ 

discriminatory manipulation of voting machines; 

Toney v, White, #15,641 (W.D. La. 1978) - purge of black 

voters. 

In voting rights cases the Justice Department and the 

federal courts have been involved in nearly every 

reapportionment of a Louisiana political subdivision: East 

Carroll Parish3, Baton Rouge?, New Orleans>, Iberville 

parish®, Rapides Parish’ and many, many others. 

The last statewide reapportionment by the Louisiana 

legislature was also challenged by black citizens. It was 

8 
thrown out and the lines re-drawn by a special master”, just 

as this one should be. 

E. CONCLUSION 

There are many in-depth reviews of the attempts by 

Louisiana to stop black citizens from fully participating in 

the electoral process.’ 

It is clear that this has been going on since 1812, and 

it is unfortunately still going on. 

10  



Louisiana politicians do not respect the constitutional 

rights and the voting rights of its black citizens. Even 

the human rights of its citizens are routinely denied. In 

Ironton, Louisiana, an all-black town had to wait until two 

years ago for running water. Until 1978 their water was 

brought in by truck! Only after civil rights remedies were 

pursued and the "60 Minutes" television show became involved 

did the town's residents receive what every other white town 

in Louisiana has for decades - water. If human rights can 

be so blithely denied, is it any wonder that the right to 

vote is denied? 

The plan for reapportioning the U.S. Congressional 

Districts is a continuation of the long history of voting 

rights abuses in Louisiana. In its historical context, it 

appears almost as if it should have been anticipated. Like 

the other instances of voting rights abuse, it must be cured 

by prompt action on the part of the Justice Department and 

the federal courts. 

 



- 

F. HISTORY FOOTNOTES 

Dufour, P., Ten Flags in the Wind, p.239. 

See: U.S. v. Louisiana, 225 F.Supp. 353 at page 374. 

96 S.Ct. 1083 

594 F.2d 56 

96 S.Ct, 1357 

536 F.2d 101 

315 F.Supp. 783 

333 F.Supp. 452 (M.D. La. 1971) Bussie v, McKeithen. 

Four excellent historical reviews of Louisiana's refusal 

allow black citizens full parity in its social, economic, 

legal and political systems are the following: 

"Modifications in Louisiana Negro Legal Status Under 

Louisiana Constitution, 1812-1957" by Paul A. Kunkel in 

volume XLIV of The Journal of Negro History, pages 1-25, 

January 1959; " 'Voting Rights' A Case Study of Madison 

Parish Louisiana," 38 U. Chicago Law Review, pages 726 - 

787; "Negro Voting Rights" 51 Virginia Law Review 1053 

(Louisiana emphasis, pages 1965 - 1079) 1965; and in the 

reported decision of U.S. v. Louisiana, 225 F.Supp. 353 

(E.D. La. 1963), affirmed 380 U.S. 145 (1965) wherein Judge 

Wisdon gives a detailed lesson in Louisiana's history of 

denial of justice to its black citizens.  



IV. LOUISIANA POPULATION CHANGE 19786 - 1986 

In 1970, Louisiana had 3,644,637 citizens. 2,541,498 

were white (69.8%) and 1,086,832 were black (29.8%). In 

1980, Louisiana had 4,203,972 citizens, a 15.3% increase. 

Of this number, 2,911,243 are white or (or 69.2%) and 

1,237,263 are black (or 29.4%). 

 



V. LOUISIANA'S SUBMITTED PLAN FOR CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT 

Louisiana's Plan for Congressional Reapportionment 

divided the state population into eight districts with an 

ideal population of 525,497. 

The packet of information submitted to the Justice 

Department in December of 1981 by the State of Louisiana 

contains the plan that was passed by the Louisiana 

Legislature to redistrict the eight United States 

Congressional seats. 

There is no explanation of the process under which this 

reapportionment took place, nor is there any indication that 

there were alternative plans presented to the Legislature 

and to the Governor for redistricting. Additionally, the 

State's submission does not address the dilution of minority 

voting strength in Louisiana's Congressional elections. 

Because the submission by the State of Louisiana does 

not address these important issues, the objections outlined 

in this comment will provide the necessary information for 

the Justice Department to give full deliberation to the 

effect and intent of the Legislature and the Governor in 

this matter. 

After examining all of the facts, it will become clear 

that both the effect and the intent of the Louisiana 

redistricting of its Congressional Districts is to dilute 

the voting strength of black citizens of the State of 

Louisiana.  



» 

’ 

A. ANLYSIS OF LOUISIANA PLAN 

The greatest concentration of minority voting strength 

in Louisiana is the City of New Orleans. The City of New 

Orleans has a population of 557,482 persons, 31,985 more 

than are needed to populate an entire Congressional district 

with the ideal population of 525,497. New Orleans is also 

55% black. 

For those who want to continue Louisiana's tradition of 

denying black citizens full participation in the political 

process it is important to split up the City of New Orleans. 

Splitting New Orleans' minority population concentration is 

the key to keeping all eight of Louisiana's Congressional 

districts with a white population majority. 

In a historic reversal, both the House and Senate of 

the Louisiana legislature passed a Congressional 

reapportionment plan which did not split the City of New 

Orleans. This created a black population majority 

Congressional district, 

However, the intervention of one man frustrated 

Louisiana's chance to begin to give Louisiana's black 

citizens meaningful participation in the Congressional 

political process. 

Governor Dave Treen stopped this chance for progress. 

He promised to veto the black majority plan and forced the 

legislature to revert back to the old process of splitting 

black areas and submerging them into white majority 

15  



districts. 

Louisiana's adopted plan for Congressional 

reapportionment again split the City of New Orleans into two 

Congressional Districts that are combined with surburban, 

overwhelmingly white neighboring parishes. 

In trying to come up with a plan that was acceptable to 

Dave Treen, the legislature "went an extra mile" and created 

the most contorted district New Orleans has seen in some 

time. 

B. DESCRIPTION 

Attached to this comment, as Appendix 1, are four maps 

of New Orleans. Map A is the way New Orleans was split 

under the reapportionment of the 1970's. Map B is the way 

the legislature said New Orleans should be split under the 

reapportionment plan for the 1980's. Map B shows that a 

3@-sided silhouette of Donald Duck was cut out of the center 

of New Orleans to make sure that the black voting power of 

the City was sufficiently diffused! Map C shows the plan 

that was adopted by the House and Senate but rejected by 

Treen. And Map D shows a plan developed by computer expert, 

Gordon Henderson, and submitted as an example of how 

reapportionment could have been done. 

Map A, or the prior existing district configuration, 

split New Orleans with a relatively clean line. 

The plans in Maps C and D recognize the historic 

political and geographic boundaries of New Orleans. Map C 

16  



shows the plan Treen, in effect, vetoed. This plan kept 

most of all New Orleans in one district except the portion 

across the Mississippi River. Map D's plan is essentially 

the complement to Map C, showing another plan which keeps 

almost all of New Orleans in one district, with the 

exception of a portion in the upper left hand corner. 

The maps clearly show that the alternative Treen 

stopped, and the other alternative suggested as an example, 

follow the natural political and historic boundaries - and 

do not fragment the black concentration of New Orleans. The 

shapes of the alternatives flow smoothly in following the 

City of New Orleans' shape. 

In addition to the contorted shape of the "Donald Duck" 

plan, a review of the districts picked up and cut off in the 

change from Map A to Map B demonstrates that racial 

considerations were used in creating the new districts. 

Why adopt a Donald Duck silhouette for carving up New 

Orleans? Why have a district come up to the edge of a city 

and back into the university section of the City? The 

answer, of course, is race. 

Almost all the precincts picked up by District 1 were 

overwhelmingly white. Why pick up Ward 14? Ward 14 has a 

total population of 43,787, with only 4,559 black citizens - 

about 10%. 

Why should District 1 jettison big portions of Wards 7, 

8 and 9?  



District 1 cut off precincts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 9A, 18, 15, 

6, 17, 17a, 18, 19, 20, 280A, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 26A, 27, 

273A, 27B, 28, 28A, 29 and 38 of Ward 7, The resulting 

population loss: 

POPULATION WHITE BLACK 

34,657 6,289 28,368 

District 1 cut off precincts 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 19, 11, 12, 

13 and 14 of Ward 8. The resulting population loss: 

POPULATION WHITE BLACK 

13,170 2,793 16,377 

District 1 also cut off precincts 19, 17, 18, 19, 24, 

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 257A, 26 and 27 of Vard 9. The resulting 

loss: 

POPULATION WHITE BLACK 

20,747 2,984 17,763 

The cumulative change in these three wards was a loss 

of 56,508 black citizens and 12,066 whites. 

C. CONCLUSION 

Louisiana'a proposed plan of reapportionment of the 

Congressional seats ignores traditional political and 

historical boundaries. Louisiana's plan is comic in its 

contorted gerrymandering, in its tiptoeing around black 

neighborhoods. Louisiana's proposed plan ignores the 

justice of full participation by black citizens. 

However, Louisiana's plan, and Dave Treen who made it 

come about, didd not ignore the fact that the key to keeping 

18  



all eight Congressional districts white is to split New 

Orleans. No, this was not ignored. It had to be done to 

keep all the districts white. It had to be done. And it 

was. 

Why effectively veto a black majority seat passed by 

both houses of the legislature if not for racial intention 

and effect? 

Why cut a 30-sided Donald Duck silhouette out of the 

heart of a city if not for racial intention and effect? 

Why add and subtract precincts to districts that are 

consistently of one race or the other if not for racial 

intention and effect? 

Louisiana and Dave Treen cannot carry their burden of 

showing that such actions in splitting and frustrating black 

voting power is without racial intent and effect. 

 



VI. OBJECTIONS 

A. THE PROCESS OF THE 1981 
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

In Appendix 2, there are fourteen news articles 

describing the process of Congressional reapportionment in 

Louisiana in 1981. 

From the beginning there were three main plans. The 

plan of Representative Samuel B. Nunez, hereinafter called 

the "Nunez Plan"; the plan of Representative John W. Scott, 

hereinafter called the "Scott Plan"; and two plans proposed 

by Governor David Treen. The Treen plans, which differ 

little from one another are referred to as "Treen Plan A and 

Treen Plan B". 

The plan proposed by Representative Nunez created seven 

white population majority congressional districts and one 

black population majority congressional district, centered 

in the City of New Orleans. This plan, which is attached as 

Appendix 3, created one district which had a black 

population majority of 54%, but a white registered voter 

majority of 56.5%. 

The plan proposed by Representative Scott also had 

seven white population majority districts and one black 

population majority district, which was also primarily 

composed of the City of New Orleans. Scott's Plan for 

redistricting created one district which had a 50.2% black 

population majority, with a 56.1% white voter registration  



‘ 

. 

majority. 

Early in November, Governor Treen made it clear that he 

opposed these proposals to create a black majority district. 

(See article in Times-Picayune, November 3, 1981, Section 1, 

Page 15). 

On November 4, 1981, the Senate of the Louisiana 

Legislature approved a Congressional redistricting plan 

which created a black population majority district in the 

City of New Orleans. The was the Nunez Plan. Governor 

Treen was making it clear that he would not stand for such a 

plan and was lobbying heavily against it. (See article in 

Times-Picayune, November 5, 1981, Section 1, Page 13). 

At the same time the House of Representatives was being 

lobbied by the Governor to enact one of his plans which 

created eight all-white majority districts. Representative 

Diana Bajoie, one of those who submit this comment, opposed 

the plan in the House Appropriation Committee and is quoted 

in the same November 5 clipping in the Appendix as objecting 

because "it continues to dilute the black vote." 

On November 6, the House of Representatives agreed to 

accept the Senate passed plan which created one black 

majority district, primarily composed of the City of New 

Orleans. (Times-Picayune, November 7, 1981, Page 1). 

Governor Treen issued a challenge and said "Any bill in 

that form is unacceptable and without question will be 

vetoed." to which Representative Bajoie responded "I don't 

21  



- 

- 

understand why the Governor is determined to ignore the 

black citizens of this State." (See Times-Picayune, 

November 7, 1981, Pages 1 and 4). 

In response, Treen again offered the Legislature his 

two proposals which each created eight white majority 

congressional districts. 

Representative Bajoie was asked if she liked Treen's 

Proposal A better than Proposal B and responded by saying: 

"It's like going from the skillet to the pan, it's hot in 

both places. (Times-Picayune, November 7, 1981, Section 1, 

Page 4). 

It is important to understand the effect of Treen's 

veto. This was a limited time special session. Time was 

running out. The legislature did not meet again until April 

of 1982 and it was imperative that they come up with some 

plan acceptable to Governor Treen. 

Up against this, the legislature had little choice 

except to knuckle under to Treen's demands and come up with 

the proposed plan which kept all eight Congressional 

districts white. 

The plan that was adopted under the Governor's threat 

was submitted to the Justice Department in December, 1981. 

In a State that is 29.8% black and contains 1,237,263 black 

citizens, there are no black population majority districts. 

Indeed, as the chart below indicates, there are none that 

are even close to having a black population majority. 

22  



CHART ONE 

DISTRICT SWHITE 3BLACK 

68.1 29.5 

53.8 44.5 

82.7 15.2 

67.1 31.6 

68.2 31.2 

73.8 25.1 

7 79.2 20.1 

8 61.2 38.3 

A review of the statistics as to voter registration shows an 

even greater disparity. 

DISTRICT WHITE $BLACK 
VOTERS VOTERS 

78.5 21.5 

61.3 

87.2 

77.6 

75.2 

81.9 

83.1 

67.1 32.9 

The Times-Picayune-States Item, the only daily 

newspaper in the metropolitan New Orleans area stated its 

objections to the proffered plan in an editorial: 

The patchwork the Legislature stitched 
together for the First, Second and Third 

23  



- 

a 

v 

Congressional Districts does not argue well for 
the Legislature as reapportioner., GOP 
Representative Robert Livingston's First District 
was rammed into the middle of Democratic 
Representative Lindy Bogg's Second District, 
dividing uptown and isolating Carrollton. 
(Times-Picayune, November 15, 1981, Section 1, 

Page 37). 

The correspondent who had been following the 

reapportionment for the Times-Picayune-State Item summed up 

what had happended as: 

...a major disappointment to black leaders, 
who wanted a black majority district in New 
Orleans. They didn't get it, and in an attempt to 
give them half-a-loaf, the remappers tortured the 
map of New Orleans unmercifully to try to cram as 
many blacks as possible into District Two. They 
came out with only 44.5%, not enough to give the 
black much hope of electing a Congressman, but 
enough to create a district that looks awful on 
the map and effectively dilutes black influence in 
the neighboring First District. (Times-Picayune, 
November 15, 1981, Section 1, Page 39.) 

It should be noted that the Times-Picayune-States Item 

is not generally considered a liberal newspaper. 

Both the intent and the effect of Governor Treen's 

actions are clear: To split the black majority population 

center into two districts. The plan under admission has 

both the effect of diluting black political strength in 

Louisiana and was passed for that purpose. 

 



LY 

a 

. 

B. ALTERNATIVE PLANS COMPARED WITH ADOPTED PLAN 

Attached to this comment as Appendix 4 is a 

Congressional redistricting plan prepared by Gordon G. 

Henderson. Mr. Henderson is a computer specialist and a 

professor at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana. Using 

the same data as the state he prepared, at the request of 

those who submit this comment, a redistricting plan for 

Louisiana. This plan is submitted as an example of what is 

possible when non-racial criteria are used to formulate a 

plan for Louisiana. 

The Henderson plan will be compared with the adopted 

plan and the Nunez plan to clarify what is really going on 

here. 

1. Population Deviations 

It is important in redistricting to come as close to 

equalizing the population in the respective districts as 

possible. 

The overall deviations for all three plans are less 

than 1%. However, the Henderson plan shows that, while the 

adopted plan is better than the Nunez plan, it is still much 

higher than it needs to be: 

OVERALL POPULATION DEVIATIONS 

Henderson Plan Adopted Plan Nunez Plan 

0.24 0.42 0.72 

The adopted plan has nearly twice as high a deviation 

as the Henderson plan.  



In the New Orleans area, this is especially clear: 

POPULATION DEVIATIONS IN NEW ORLEANS AREA 

Henderson Plan Adopted Plan Nunez Plan 

District 1 0.00 -9.03 9.22 

District 2 0.07 8.21 -0.07 

District 3 g.01 0.02 

  

Total: 0.08 0.24 0.29 

Here, the adopted plan is three times more deviant than 

the numbers warrant. 

2. Black Population/Registration 

Both the Henderson plan and the Nunez plan are superior 

to the adopted plan in fairly reflecting minority voting 

strength, especially in the New Orleans area. 

The adopted plan holds black population and 

registration in the New Orleans area to a high of 44.5% 

population and 38.7% registration of District 2. The Nunez 

plan is more realistic and greater than a 56.5% black 

population and 44.0% black registration composition to 

District 2. The Henderson plan, again, is most appropriate 

for the population of the area creating a district with a 

58.5% black population and 49.17% black voter registration. 

3. Crossing Parish Lines 

In Louisiana, the traditional political county 

subdivision is called a parish. These plans all cross some 

parish lines, but again, where non-racial criteria is used - 

serious improvement is possible.  



The adopted plan crosses seven parish lines: Allen, 

Beauregard, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, Orleans, Rapides 

and St. Martin. The Nunez plan crosses only four parish 

lines: East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, Orleans and St. Martin, 

a significant improvement. 

4. District Shapes 

Appendix 1 contains maps of how these three plans 

affect New Orleans - the real concentration of minority 

voting power in Louisiana. 

Clearly the Nunez plan (Map C) and the Henderson plan 

(Map D) are cleaner and more respectful of traditional 

boundaries than the adopted plan. 

The adopted plan, with its 3@0-sided cut out of Donald 

Duck, is a joke in terms of its shape and disrespect for 

traditional boundaries. 

5. Conclusion 

On all counts: population deviation, recognition of 

black population and registration, respecting parish lines, 

and shapes of the districts, the adopted plan is defective. 

 



C. HISTORY OF DAVID TREEN 

It is important in evaluating any action to place that 

action in its proper context. 

The intervention of Dave Treen alone killed Louisiana's 

chance for a black majority district. Both houses of the 

legislature passed a plan to give black citizens 

participation in the Congressional political process. Dave 

Treen alone reversed that opportunity for participation. 

Because Dave Treen's intervention thwarted full black 

participation it is necessary to review the political agenda 

and actions of Dave Treen as he has acted them out over 

time. 

These facts are brought out reluctantly and only after 

deciding that they are necessary to this presentation. They 

may cause some discomfort to some, but 1,237,263 citizens of 

Louisiana have been more than discomforted for some time. 

Full participation in the political process is critical and 

discomfort is not a legitimate reason to block the quest for 

justice. 

As the flyers following this section show, Dave Treen 

played an important part in the activities of the States 

Rights Party in Louisiana. In 1960, Dave Treen ran as an 

elector at large, in the presidential election, for the 

States Rights Party. He is pictured on the first flyer 

along with others like Leander H. Perez of Plaquemines 

Parish.  



The States Rights Party was committed, as its flyer 

indicates, to "stop integration backed up by federal force." 

As their "Declaration of Principles" indicates, the States 

Rights Party opposed Civil Rights bills and federal laws to 

determine voting qualifications. Other of their beliefs and 

platforms are set out in the four page "Election Plan" 

attached. 

Dave Treen was integrally involved with these issues 

and the States Rights Party as Chairman of the Central 

Committee of the States Rights Party. (See New Orleans 

States-Item, June 3, 1961, Page 3). 

Most chilling of Mr. Treen's activities during that 

time is the one indicated on the final flyer attached to 

this section. Along with Governor Ross Barnett of 

Mississippi and Judge Leander Perez, David Treen was a 

featured speaker at a States Rights action billed as a 

"RALLY TO SAVE SEGREGATION." 

As the years went by Dave Treen was no longer openly 

involved with the States Rights Party, but he was apparently 

still adamantly oposed to full rights for minority 

citizens. 

According to the 1978 Almanac of American Politics, in 

their analysis of Dave Treen, both of Dave Treen's first two 

runs for Congress against Hale Boggs used Treen's opposition 

to civil rights as a mainstay of his campaign. As they 

note:  



Both times Treen's big issue was Civil Rights: in 
1964 he charged that Boggs secretly favored the 
Civil Rights Act of that year; in 1968 he used 
Boggs' support of the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 
and 1966. 

After being elected a Congressman Dave Treen remained 

consistent. On June 4, 1975, HR 6219, the extension of the 

1965 Voting Rights Act, passed the U. S. House of 

Representatives 341 - 70. Treen was one of the 780. 

Treen's action in single-handedly defeating the black 

majority district, passed by both the Louisiana House and 

Senate, must be evaluated in the light of his prior actions 

- and these are his actions. 

 



Candidates For Unpledged Presidential Electors, Nov. 8, 1960 

i t " 

District Attorney 
t Marlin W, Drake, Jr. Ben H. Freeman Emile A, Wagner, Jr. L. H. Perez David Cr~Fre Wm. M. Rainach by 4th Congr. Dist. 3rd Congr. Dist. 2nd Congr. Dist, 1st Congr. Dist, Elector at Large Elector at Large | 

States Rights - Democratic Unpledged Electors 
To The Voters of Louisiana: — 

§ Sheriff 

“4 C.E. Hester 
: Independent 4 Sth Congr. Dist. 

Presidential HOW CAN YOU HELP STOP INTEGRATION BACKED UP BY FEDERAL FORCE? Electors 

wd 
WE DID IT BEFORE — WE CAN DO IT AGAIN. 

HOW IS A PRESIDENT ELECTED? 

Br
in
n 

3 

L
r
 i 

» 

Under the U. S. Constitution, the people of each state elect the same number 
of Presidential Electors as there are Congressmen and Senators from that state. 
So, Louisiana will elect 10 Electors on November 8th. Thirty days after their elec- 
tion, the Electors cast their votes for President. 

    
LY. Sivdorss " 
6th Congr. Dist. 

Kennedy and Nixon must receive a majority, or the votes of at least 269 
Electors to be elected. . Both candidates, and all poll takers admit, that this will 
be one of the closest elections in history, and that neither Kennedy or Nixon 
may get a majority. 

Louisiana's 10 Independent Unpledged Electors could very well prevent 
either Kennedy or Nixon from receiving the necessary majority. Further, we are 
assured of Independent Electors in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and 
possibly other Southern states. 

Edward Dubusson 
7th Congr. Dist. 

In 1876, during reconstruction, when the people of the South were being 
persecuted and Louisiana was governed by Carpetbaggers and negroes under fed- 
eral military domination, neither candidate for President, Hayes or Tilden, had a 
majority of electoral votes. So, Independent Electors from Louisiana and two 
other Southern states traded, elected Hayes President, and ended Carpetbag rule 
and federal military domination in Louisiana and in the South. 

This shows the importance of electing Independent Electors now, because 
the situation today is similar, with federal forced racial integration advocated by 
both Kennedy and Nixon, and military power lurking in the background. E. Otis Edgerton, Jr. 

8th Congr. Dist, 
LOUISIANA DID IT BEFORE. WE CAN AND MUST DO IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 8th 

(over) 43D s 

i . 

I J 

} 5! 

] 

i 

i! 

1 
i 

t  



A YOTE FOR KENNEDY OR NIXON IS A YOTE FOR THEIR PLATFORMS 

Both party platforms, which Kennedy and Nixon have pledged to carry out, advocate: 

1. Full integration of our schools by 1963 at the latest. 

Unlawful sit-in racial demonstrations which would agitate race riots and violence, and disrupt pri. 
vate business, 

A Federal Employment Commission (F.E.P.C.), to racially integrate all jobs in industry on a racial 
percentage basis, thus throwing thousands of men out of their good jobs to make way for those the 
F.E.P.C. would force employers to hire, and cause the destruction of our American Free Enterprise 
System. 

The repeal of the Connally Amendment to the United Nations, which would surrender our nation's 
sovereignty and States Rights to a World Court, or to world zg vernment, which means surrender to 
international Communism. E

E
 

E
s
 

F
E
 

E
E
 

O
E
 

T
E
 

a
E
 

be 
_ er

 

¥ 

Kennedy also advocates a parity farm price control program which former Democratic Vice-Presi- 
dent and ultra-liberal Henry Wallace points out, would require strict federal controls from the far- 

| mer to the consumer, and create more restrictions on agriculture “than in most Communist coun- 
| tries.” The Nixon “Me-Too” farm program is similar. 

Don't be fooled by false political propaganda by a few self-seeking Louisianaians who say that they en- 
+ ,dorse Kennedy or Nixon, but not their platforms, or that the two parties don’t mean what they say in these 
‘platforms. The truth is that both candidates pledged themselves to pass federal laws to carry out these plat- 

r -~ 
Fey id 

If you vote for either Kennedy or Nixon you endorse their platforms, and you would be asking to have 
these outrages imposed against the people of Louisiana. 

If you are against these platforms and against the Kennedy and Nixon pledges to carry them out — then 
vote against both Kennedy and Nixon. Vote for Independent Presidential Electors under the Statue of Lib- 
erty Emblem on the voting machines. 

LOUISIANA DID IT BEFOTE — WE MUST DO IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 8th 

The slate of Independent Electors, under the Statue of Liberty, is the only slate of candidates dedicated 
to save your rights, liberty and freedom — which can and will win in Louisiana. 

Vole For The States Rights — Democralic Independent Unpledged Electors  



THE STATES@RIGHTS PARTY OF SDUISIANA 
A Declaration Of Principles 

<
 

-n
 

We insist upon complete observance of the express provisions and the intent of the Tenth Amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States which reserves to the states or to the people all powers not specifically delegated to the United States. 

We most decidedly favor the right of the states to retain full and complete control of education, 
police power, marriage, transportation, health, welfare, and all such matters which preserve 
the peace and good order within the sovereign states. 
We favor the recognition of the right of each state and the exercise of said right in the prosecu- 
tion and control of all persons and organizations engaged in communist, subversive and other 
seditionist activity against the state. 

We oppose any attempt by Congress to pass laws interfering with the rights of the states to de- 
termine voting qualifications. 

We oppose the so-called Civil Rights "force bills" giving the federal government the power to 
supercede local authority within the several states. 

We oppose the welfare state philosophy embraced by both the Republican and Democratic Parties, 
on the ground that such paternalism destroys individual freedom, dignity, and initiative, which 
directly leads to, and results in, economic collapse. 

We oppose "federal aid" to education on the ground that grants of federal funds eventually lead 
to federal domination which in turn destroys the autonomy of the several states. 

We oppose the superseding of state constitutions and laws and the superseding of the federal con- 
stitution and federal laws by treaties or presidential agreements. Accordingly we endorse the 
principles embodied in the Bricker Amendment, which limits the treaty making power of the 
President. 

TW
. 

1-
82

57
 

C
A
R
L
O
S
 

J. 
NO
TO
Q,
 
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
 

a 
or 
<C 

= 
— 
prin 

AN 
i We favor state ownership of tidelands within their historical boundaries. / 

38
01
 

MA
GA
ZI
NE
 

ST.
 

We favor the retention of the McCarran-Walter Act which fixes quotas for immigration. 
We feel that the present amendment to the Constitution allowing unlimited income taxation 
seriously retards economic growth and should be amended so as to provide a limit upon the amount 
of such tax not to exceed 25% of taxpayer's income. We favor total abolition of federal estate 
(inheritance) taxes. 

We support the right of labor union members to control their own local unions through freely con- ducted elections, uncoerced by union bosses. We oppose the un-restricted use of union funds 
belonging to workingmen for the purposes of political corruption and personal gain by union 
bosses. We oppose the control of labor organizations by those union dictators employing the 
tactics of crime, corruption, and communism. 

We favor severance from government employment of all communists and fellow travelers, with= 
out any delay whatsoever. 

We oppose the creation of any Federal Forced Employment Practices Act. (FEPC). 

We oppose the use of taxpayers money to pay for federal operation of businesses which can be 
more economically carried on by private enterprise. 

We favor retention of the Connally Reservation and oppose any partial or total world government 
which would limit in any way the sovereignty of the United States or abridge the Constitutional 
rights of U. S. citizens. : 

We favor a re-examination of our foreign aid policies, both military and economic, with a view 
toward restricting the use of taxpayer's money for this purpose only to those cases where it is clearly and unmistakably required for the defense or security of this nation. 

VOTE FOR PRINCIPLE! VOTE THE STATES RIGHTS INDEPENDENT ELECTOR SLATE ON NOV, 8! 

CL] 

| iy 

-  



| ol wif a |G POW 

THE STATES RIGHTS INDEPENDENT " ftecro PLAN 
) 12TH WARD HEADQUARTERS onean® ¥ 

3801 MAGAZINE ST. 
TW. 1-8257 

§ - Many people have asked, and right 0S J. MO 
so, the question: ‘‘What is the purpose 

f voting for presidential electors that 
k- not pledged to any candidate?’’ 

To answer, first let us reflect on 
the alternative, namely, voting for a 
Ke pledged to Kennedy or to Nixon, 
BOTH of these parties are committed 

| programs and to a political phil- 
sophy which are socialistic in their 

nature. Any suggestion that the goals 
f these two parties are within the 
ealm of permissive constitutional 

action is pure hypocrisy. The Paiiorms 
f both parties are extremely liberal. The 

. Democrats openly admit this. Some Repub- 
‘glicans proclaim, when addressing Southern- 
ig that their program has a conservative 
theme. The argument is based upon a 
omparison of the Republican platform and 

rhe Democratic platform. By such com- 
parison, all that one can truthfully say is 
hat the Democratic program is MORE 
socialistic. If the Republican platform is 
analyzed objectively and without regard to 
its Democratic counterpart, it must also 
be classified as a socialistic-paternalistic 
Saba 

NOW, the predominant sentiment in 
Louisiana is opposed to the political and 
conomic philosophy of socialism; it is 

opposed to such things as: 

i . . . Federal regulation of voting quali- 
ications 

. . . The so-called ‘‘federal aid’’ system 
hich usurps the authority of the states by 

giving back a small part of the tax dollars 
gfaken away. 

. Federal control programs that des- 
troy the freedom of farmers and at the same 
ime cause artificially high consumer prices. 

iI . A federal commission that will tell 
you whom you can, and whom you cannot 

feorioy. 

e070, Chairman A federal commission that will 
regulate to whom you sell your home 
or lease your property. 

. Surrender of sovereignty of the 
United States to a world court domin- 
ated by antagonistic and insignificant 
nations. 

. The proposition that the federal 
government owes everybody a job, a 
home, and perfect health. 

=". . A thoroughly paternalistic system" 
Fhe os, which would destroy the self-reliance 

and initiative of our people with re- 
suet, pronomic chaos. 

.. Immorally high tax brackets that 
destroy initiative. 5 

“The proposition that unions are 
above the law and that the prohibitions of 
our anti-monoply and anti-trust laws should 
not apply to them. 

. A foreign policy that is based upon 
the ridiculous assumption that you can buy 
friends with money, rather than by showing 
-strength and thereby gaining their respect, 

The list of indictments against the two 
national parties is indeed longer than this! 

HOW are we going to let these two 
socialistic parties know that we are unalter- 
ably opposed to their philosophies and their 
programs? If you vote for EITHER one of 
these parties you are in no way indicating 

your opposition to ‘any of the things men- 
tioned above. If you are inclined to make a 
decision based upon a choice of the lesser 
of evils, PLEASE stop and reflect: The 
lesser of the evils is moving in the same 
direction as the greater of the evils! In 
four years the Republican Party platform 
will be what the Democratic platform is 
today, and the Democratic platform will be 
four years closer to complete destruction 
of freedom and individual liberty.  



i 

i 

THE ACCELERATING TREND TOWARD A COMPLETELY 

CENTRAL ALL-POWERFUL, PATERNALISTIC, SOCIAL AND 

POLITICAL SYSTEM MUST BE STOPPED! AND NOW! 

You are NOT going to stop this trend by voting for EITHER of the two big parties. 

Such a vote does not in any way express or signify your opposition to their policies. 

You can make known your opposition, however, by voting on November 8th for a party 

which is DEDICATED to preservation of individual freedom and dignity, that is, by 

voting the STATES RIGHTS slate of independent and free electors. By such vote we 

serve notice on Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, G. Mennen Williams, Carmine DeSapio, 

Paul Douglas, Clifford Case, Walter Reuther, Nelson Rockefeller, and many others 

(unfortunately, too numerous to mention) that we do not accept the way they are running 

this country and the way they propose to lead us. And, we let people everywhere know 

that we in Louisiana are OPPOSED to a socialistic and paternalistic philosophy which 

will only result in economic diaster and moral degeneration. THIS ADVANTAGE ALONE 

_ MAKES OUR EXISTENCE AND OUR CAMPAIGN WORTHWHILE. 

Imagine what effect this result would have upon conservatives EVERYWHERE who 

continue to feel that their situation is hopeless! In all probability independent electors 

will be chosen in other states. To be sure, this number will be small, but the election 

of these independent electors will be a stern warning to the national parties that hence- 

forth they cannot count on securing the necessary electoral vote by continually moving 

to the left. The effect of choosing independent electors in a handful of states, or even in 

Louisiana alone, will be a signal to right-thinking people everywhere to stand up against 

totalitarian and tyrannical government and to make their weight felt in both the Demo- 

cratic and Republican Parties in the future. 

WHAT ELSE CAN BE GAINED FROM CHOOSING 

INDEPENDENT ELECTORS? 

The election is regarded by all as one which will be exceedingly close. It is quite 

possible that Louisiana’s ten electoral votes will be sufficient to prevent either side 

from obtaining a majority. The chances increase as we add independent electors from 

Alabama, Mississippi and other states. 

Let us assume for a moment that the -electoral vote of Louisiana, either alone or 

in combination with that of other states, has prevented a majority by either of the 

national party candidates. It must be remembered that the electoral votes are not cast 

until December 19th, even though the election of those electors occurs on November 8th. 

The president of the United States is NEVER elected until the Electoral College has met 

and voted. If we hold the balance of power, we will not have to seek out Nixon and 

Kennedy for they will be here in Louisiana to convince us that it is in the interest of the 

nation that we cast our votes for the one or the other. In this circumstance, it would 

not be our purpose to force either candidate into a position completely contrary to his 

conscience. But the flexibility of these candidates has already been demonstrated. 

Everyone knows the influence Rockefeller had in designing Nixon's platform, and we all 

know what influence Walter Reuther, Paul Butler, Hubert Humphrey and company had in 

drafting the Kennedy platform. Our approach would be in perfect good faith. But there 

would be no reluctance to use such power to bring about what we know to be right and to 

accomplish what we know to be in keeping with the letter and spirit of our Constitution.  



We know, for example, that it is unconstitutional and absolutely immoral for the 
federal government to attempt to set up qualifications for voters. This has been the 
province of the states always and the Constitution protects that authority. Certainly, it 
would be right to ask Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Nixon if either of them would favor recogni- 
tion of that constitutional guarantee and to exact a promise not to tamper with state 
voting qualifications. 

Another illustration: There are certain long standing procedures and method by 
which Congress runs itself. The two national platforms condemn these traditions. 
They both propose to curtail debate in the Senate and to strip certain of the southern 
committee chairmen of their powers. There is mention in the press almost daily of 
what Congress is going to do to destroy the leadership of Chairman Howard Smith of 
the Rules Committee. In this area, as an example, there is much that could be accom- 
plished by an understanding with one of the national party candidates. There is a lot 
more, to be sure, which will be detailed elsewhere. 

In the event neither of the old parties will make concessions which are acceptable 
AND ENFORCEABLE, the unpledged electors will cast their votes for a candidate who 
has proved himself an unwavering supporter of constitutional government. 

By casting our electoral vote for a man such as Harry Byrd, for example, the 
election would be thrown to the House of Representatives where each state has but ONE 
vote. There being SO states, a total of 26 votes will be necessary to elect. Neither 
national party will control enough state delegations outside the South to elect their 
candidate. It must not be overlooked that, in such a situation, the primary motive of 
most politicians in each party will be to place a member of their party in the White 
House and thereby control the executive department, the personality used for this 
purpose being a secondary consideration. Would not Harry Byrd be acceptable to other 
Democratic delegations, which when combined with the vote of the Southern states, 

could elect him? 

A word to the wise being sufficient, there is no further need to dwell on this 
particular opportunity which may become available through the selection of unpledged 
electors. 

IN CONCLUSION, the principal advantages of voting for the UNPLEDGED ELEC- 
TORS of the STATES RIGHTS PARTY of LOUISIANA may be summarized as follows: 

FIRST, we thereby let it be known that we will oppose, with all our strength and 
determination, the headlong plunge into destructive socialism embraced, in varying 
degrees, by both national parties. 

SECOND, by being the balance of power in the Electoral College (which votes 41 
days after the general election of November 8th), we may bring about important and 
far-reaching agreements for the protection of constitutional government,  



THIRD, by being the balance of power in the Electoral College, we may be able to 
bring about the election of a man of great stature who has demonstrated his firm 
adherence to the principle of state sovereignty, who has a high regard for the dignity 
of the individual, and who will resist all encroachments against the liberty of ALL 
the people! 

VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE . ... VOTE STATES RIGHTS! 

CONGRESSIONAL : 

DISTRICT ELECTOR RESIDENCE 
  

  

First District Judge Leander H. Perez Dalcour 
Second District Emile A. Wagner, Jr. New Orleans 
Third District Ben H. Freeman Lafayette 
Fourth District Marlin W. Drake, Jr. Shreveport 
Fifth District Sheriff C.E. Hester Tallulah 
Sixth District J.Y. Sanders, Jr. Baton Rouge 
Seventh District - Edward Dubuisson Opelousas 
Eighth District E. Otis Edgerton, Jr. - Alexandria 
At Large David C. Treen Metairie 
At Large William M. Rainach Homer 

12TH WARD HEADQUARTERS 
© 3801 MAGAZINE ST. 

TW. 1-8257 

CARLOS J. NOTO, Chairman  



  
tm ibd a 5 

\ SAY VE SEGREGAT ION 
- TRUTH about KENNEDY & MIXOi 

GOVERNOR RUSS BARNETT 
of MISSISSIPPI 

EMILE WAGNER 

JUDGE LEANDER PEREZ 

WILLIE SAINACH 
DAVID TREEN 

Music Halisshinanis 

lov.4 FRIDAY 7:30 PI 
orleans MUNICIPAL AUDIT OR 

  

   



. 

D. OBJECTIONS BY LAWMAKERS 

A cursory reading of the news articles in the Appendix 

of this comment will reveal repeated objections by black 

lawmakers in Louisiana to the actions of Governor Treen and 

the plan which he forced the Legislature to adopt. 

Additionally, it should be noted that a number of white 

lawmakers recognized the racial motivation and impact of the 

plans that the Governor was proposing. 

In addition to Representative Bajoie, Representative 

Johnny Jackson and Senator Henry E. Braden who spoke out as 

black lawmakers in opposition to Governor Treen's plan, 

there were a number of white legislators who spoke out 

against Governor Treen's refusal to accept the black 

majority district plan: Representative Mary Landrieu; 

Representative John Scott and others voiced their 

objections. 

Thus, it is clear that the Governor was fully aware of 

the discriminatory impact of his proposal. Going ahead with 

a proposal, knowing full well of its discriminatory impact, 

can only lead one to the conclusion that in addition to 

having the effect of diluting black voting strength, the 

Governor's actions were intended to dilute black voting 

strength in Louisiana.  



. 

i 

E. COMPARING LOUISIANA'S PLAN TO OTHERS 

OBJECTED TO BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

In July of 1981, the Attorney General objected to the 

reapportionment of the Senate of the State of Virginia and 

to the House as well. There, as here, the Attorney General 

noted that a majority black City had been combined with 

predominantly white areas to create white majority 

districts. There, as here, the Attorney General noted that 

the attempt to split the black vote was done in a manner 

where the legislators were fully aware of the discriminatory 

impact of their actions. And, there, as here, the Attorney 

General noted that there were available alternatives to the 

adopted plan which avioded extreme dilution of black voting 

strength. 

Although the facts in Virginia are moderately different 

than those in Louisiana, the recurring themes are the same. 

The outcome of their submission to the Justice Department 

should also be the same. 

As is noted in both the Virginia and New York 

objections, the State must shoulder the burden of proving 

that their plan fairly reflects the strength of minority 

voting power as it exists. 

In New York, as here, the Attorney General noted that 

there was a fragmentation of minority residential areas and 

a corresponding dilution of minority voting strength. 

Although the facts are modestly different, the theme is the  



same. 

Clearly, the effect of the Louisiana Plan is to dilute 

the black voting strength. Clearly, intent of the Louisiana 

Plan is to dilute the black voting strength. Clearly, the 

Justice Department should interpose an objection based on 

Seciton 5 of the Voting Rights Act to prebent this injustice 

from continuing in Louisiana. 

 



VIII. CONCLUSION 

Louisiana's plan reflects: 

l. Discriminatory impact; 

2. Full knowledge of discriminatory impact; 

3. History of offical actions taken for invidious 

purposes; 

The inevitable and foreseeable consequence of 

the Governor's actions; and 

5. Absence of nonracial reasons. 

The plan adopted by Louisiana, the "Donald Duck" plan 

is discriminatory both in effect and intent. 

It must be objected to by Justice, in the name of 

Justice, 

r 

. 

v  



APPENDIX 1 

Maps of How New Orleans 
Affected 

y 

? 

 



APPENDIX 2 

News Articles 

 



  

Saturday, October 31, 1981 The Times-Picayune; Ihe States-ltem © Section 1, Page 11 
  

  

NIONS ~~ 
  

  

~ OTHER OP 
COLUMNS   

  

|" LOUISIANA CAPITAL REPORT 

Clear sa 
By BILL LYNCH 

_.: .. Capital burean 

* “BATON ROUGE — Most of the con- Ka 

“troversy over reapportionment ®, 
§ ©’ apparently is going to focus on con-. 
oN 

gressional redistricting, with plans 
being. proposed for reapportioning the 
Legislature expected to have relatively 
lear sailing. ot 
There undoubtedly will be some loud 

debate and moaning and groaning from 
*individual lawmakers who might feel 
» aggrieved by the final composition of 
the. House and Senate districts, but a 

; majority of each chamber appears 
- ready to produce a final remapping of 
- Its districts at the special session open- 

§ : Ing Monday. : 
We use the word relatively, because 

10;years ago reapportionment was 
cided on by a special master 

ppointed by a federal judge after the 
gislature failed to reapportion itself. 
At the outset, reapportionment of 

probably was the one most 
ht with danger, simply because of 
pens — 105 House seats com. 

Songressional districts. 
; any current district’s lines 

there was an immediate rip- 
90 a neighboring district, 

ant every House member 

Ir NSE PIO OC ARAL 1 EE I BRL IRE 0 3 

other. .. 

in the Senate and eight in 

- Fader if * 

would feel the effect in one degree or 

> When Rep. Eaulle C “Poppi” Brun- 
eau, Ind-New 
.bers of his subcommittee on House 
‘reapportionment began their job of .. 

cceptable : fing ¢ together a cohesive, a 
at to a majority) plan, they had 

Sthresfoldtask.. .. :°..5 "0. 
.. First, the subcommittee had to 

". arrive at an arithmetical resolution — 
.a humbers game matching population 
with a median figure and minimum 

ar = .. precincts here and there, but for the - deviation. - 
Second, it was necessary to develop 
a plan that would meet any standard of 
non-diseriminatior acceptable to the 
U.S, Justice Department under the 

. Voting Rights Act and one that can 
withstand any court challenge. . 
And third, there was the political 

“Jradlen of dealing with incumbent 
awmakers, none of whom wanted 

- ‘either to be lumped in a district with 
another incumbent or.to have their dis- 
tricts revised in such a fashion as to 
make their re-election more difficult. 

Dividing the state mathematically 
was never a real problem. A computer 

- had little difficulty with that. It was - 
those other two factors, non-discrimi- - 
nation toward minorities, principally 
blacks, and the politics of incumbency 
that posed the real challenge. 

: 

Orleans, and the mem- 

* The same three parameters may be 
applied to senatorial and congressional 
redistricting. 
.Bruneau is convinced that for the 

most part the House subcommittee has 
produced a plan that will survive all 
three tests and pass the Legislature. 

:- One last hurdle in Caddo Parish, 
- Bruneau said, seems to have been 
worked out, with the Caddo delegation 
devising new districts for themselves 
that they can vote for. There still may 
be some other minor amendments on 

“most part, the plan will stand up, 
- Bruneau predicted. 

+ Black legislators have indicated dis- 
_ Pleasure with the House plan because 
* it doesn’t provide enough black major- 

ity districts to assure more black rep- 
resentatives. Blacks have asked for as 
many as 18 such districts in the state, 
but the number is now at 13. - 
If the present proposal passes, the 
next resort for the blacks would most 
likely be the courts. Given the mood of 
the Reagan administration, anything 
other than the most blatant discrimina- 
tion is not likely to be rejected by the 
Justice Department. 

The present legislative course of 
action is for each chamber to take up 
its own reapportionment plan first. The 
House and Governmental Affairs Com- 

“mittee, which has charge of all of the 
reapportionment proposals, will begin 
its hearings Tuesday. % j 

Bruneau said he believes the Public- 
Service Commission reapportionment 
plan will be disposed. of first, quickly 
and easily. There has been very little 
opposition to what has been proposed 
for the five public service districts. 

Then, he said, he hopes the commit- 
tee will move on to the House reappor- . 
tionment plan before taking up con. 
gressional redistricting — the most - 
controversial of all. ] 

He said that whatever bill the House 
passes on, House reapportionment is 
unlikely to have any difficulty in the 
Senate. Conversely, whatever the Sen- 
ate adopts for Senate reapportionment 
will have little trouble in the House. 

Bruneau had tried unsuccessfully to 
* get the governor to hold a special ses- 
sion dealing only with reapportion- 
ment. But the governor included 41 
items in the call, a number of which 
call for technical changes in botched- 
up laws passed in the regular session. 

. But there is also over $100 million in 
appropriations being planned, includ- 
ing spending from the Enhanced Min- 
eral Trust Fund. 

“Hopefully,” Bruneau said, “we 
won't get the reapportionment process 
caught in the log-rolling process.”  



18
61

 
‘€ 

33
qu
an
op
 

‘A
ep
sa
nj
 

ed
 

‘| 
uo
nd
ag
 

o 
3 

    W3ii-S31lvVis dH1l / ANNAV
O
I
d
-
S
T
N
I
L
 

d
H
L
 

  

  

La. remap 

  

Joint panel! 
may decide” 
  

By JACK WARDLAW 
Capital burean fiei:id 
BATON ROUGE — Although al : 

least six plans to reapportion Louisititk 
ana’s congressional districts are beforé¢ “= 

the Legislature, nobody yet has seen 

the plan that utlimately will bg 

adopted, the chairman of the Senate 

Reapportionment Study Committee 

said Monday. 
The ultimate plan probably will be 

‘worked out in a joint House-Senate? 

conference committee late in the spe-i: 

cial legislative session, said Sen.i 

Thomas H. Hudson, D-Baton Rouge. ©. 

His House counterpart, Rep. John W. 

“Jock” Scott, D-Alexandria, agreed 

that a conference committee probably 

will have to make the final decision, 
but added that is not necessarily a bad | § 

good 
Hudson and Scott, who is chairman 

of the House and Governmental Affairs 

Committee, spoke and answered ques- 
tions at a luncheon meeting of the 

Baton Rouge Press Club at the | 
Ramada Inn in Port Allen. j , 

_ At a separate news conference later, 

Gov. David C. Treen said he, too, thinks 
it possible that congressional redis- 
tricting may go to conference, but he 
said that is “normal legislative proce- 

dure.” : 
Treen also said that his three alter- 

native plans for redrawing the state’s 
eight congressional districts are to be 
filed as administration pills. He rei- 

terated that he does not oppose the 

idea of creating a black-majority dis- 

trict, but opposes existing proposals to 
do so because of the effect they have 
on adjoining districts. 

Hudson predicted that a Senate com- 

mittee Tuesday will scrap a plan 

approved last week by his study com- 

. mittee and replace it with one creating 

separate New Orleans and Jefferson 
Parish districts. =~. © 

" “That plan has gained 
  

“You also have to remember that 
the governor is adamantly opposed to 
that plan,” Hudson said. Treen has the 

Ke
ps
au
pa
y 

0)
 

si
ie
jy
y 

‘p
re
s 

yj
oo
g 

uo
ne
al
d 

Su
im
-j
yd
ur
 
w
o
s
 

j 
i 

40
J 

p3
[n
pa
yd
s 

sy 
aa
yj
ru
sm
 

4 
“ 

o
u
 

S
I
L
,
 

I' 
[e
ju
sw
ut
aa
cn
’p
ue
 

IS
NO
K 

"U
0K
}I
I[
a 

[e
11
0]
 

1],
 u

ed
ni
qn
da
y 

0]
 

je
Id
oW
wa
Qg
 

ur
de
ay
 

pr
eu
oy
 

a9
)1
e)
 
L
w
u
n
p
 

"2
86
1 

ut
 
wr
y 

od
 

e 
‘3
30
08
 

on
ji
jo
d 

un
y 

Pa
zI
aN
LD
 

se
y 

P3
10
A 

as
no
y 

ay
y 

24
) 

pl
es
 
19
00
5 

[e
nu
a)
 

~e
ur
aq
n3
 

GL
61
 

ay
) 

ur
 

us
o,
 

1s
uj
ed
e 

-j
1a
qu
ey
 

si
n 

Jo
j 

os
[e
 

pu
e.
(g
g[
 

ur 
u
e
d
i
i
q
n
d
a
y
 

js
ur
ed
e-
 

3
 

10
] 

A[
Su
ot
ys
 

q 
pa
uu
el
d 

se
 
jo
Ls
ip
 

js
ut
ed
e 

aj
ep
ip
ue
d 

Bu
ip
ie
 

£j
qi
ss
od
 

pu
 

Je
lo
0W
w 

A 

q IE
 

AO
) 

pu
e 

P3
[n
pa
yo
s 

st 

yj
 
u
r
a
y
 -

 

un
oL
IS
IP
al
 
[e
uo
ls
sa
du
od
 

ay
y,
 

ud
 

ay
y,
 

‘m
ou
 
ar
e 

fa
y)
 

1. 
2e
qu
ns
 

sau
ry 

Jo
uy
si
p 

oy
 

— 
uo
sp
nj
 

pu
e 

— 
uo
nj
eS
aj
ap
 

uo
d 

ju
sq
um
ou
t 

ay
) 

4q
 
pa
yo
r 

05
13
}j
3f
 
pu
e 

su
es
) 

Su
ny
ds
 

a
n
n
s
q
n
s
 

0)
 
Ju
na
aw
r 

je
r 

UE
 

3q
 
[1
4 

aJ
3y
} 

pu
e 

‘A
ep
sa
ng
, 

1e
q 

Bu
no
wy
si
pa
s 

je
uo
ys
sa
id
 

P
N
I
W
W
O
)
 

si
re
jj
y 

[B
IU
WU
ID
 

9)
BU
AS
 

3Y
) 

3J
0J
aq
 
aw
I0
d 

03 

Ke
m 

ay
y 

o 
sd
aa
y 

Je
y 

[e
uo
is
sa
us
 

| 
“3
u0
 

10
j 

u 
i 

ue
d 

ap
 

; 
d
w
a
y
n
e
 

momentum,” 
I 21 > pa dnd Be SAIIREED 81 

Fi 

  

right to veto any plan the Legislature ;:. 
pproves. {5 
Hudson and Scott agreed that the i: i 

mo
 
do
y 

‘s
n 

Ju
aq
um
du
r 

ay
y,
 

“1
oe
dw
od
 

e 
£q
e 

SJ
ow
 

31 
j
e
w
 

0) 
J
o
e
 

UB
 

SE
 
J
I
S
I
Q
 

‘e
LI
pu
EX
aY
 

Jo
 
Su
og
 

“p
m 

SI 
n
e
r
d
o
w
a
q
 

U3
}e
aM
 

0)
 
1I
0J
J3
 

Ue
 

se
 

1 
« U
ON
NI
NS
U0
) 

ay
y 

ur 
pa
sr
nb
aa
 

1p 
[e
uo
ls
sa
id
uo
d 

ay
) 

op
as
 

3 $1
01
1)
 

an
ss
y 

{
s
p
 

' 
0}
 
aa
nj
ej
si
3 

i 
.
,
 

4 

i 
-£
xy
 

rl 

SI
 
a3
eq
 
wo
uj
 
pa
nu
ry
uo
) 

¥T
 

a)
 

20
3 

ea
pr
 

Au
r 

j u
s
e
m
 

Sa
ou
ey
d 

um
o 

si
y 

di
ay
 

03 
Ju
r 

pre
s 

ay 
* 

du
o 

0) 
sy
 

d
e
w
 
s
p
o
p
 
Le
w 

fo
ur
. 

SI
 
30
08
 

Je
y)
 
a8
1e
yd
 

§ 

  plans for redoing the state House and j— 
Senate districts are far less controver- 
sial and probably will pass with little 
difficulty. : 

Scott said he feels that House and 
Senate versions of a plan to redraw the 

five state Public Service Commission 

districts are so different that that mat- | 

ter, too, is likely to go to a confer- 

:7. put Scott said he thinks the House 
and Senate congressional plans con- 
tain no “irreconcilable differences” 

and getting agreement may not be ‘as 

difficult as many suppose. 
.” Scott defended the: House proposal 

for redrawing the 8th Congressional     Tarn to next page 
  

   



La. Sengte 
for congre 

Other reapportionment stories, Pages 
20,21 
By JACK WARDLAW 
and BILL LYNCH 

boy Capital bureau 
BATON ROUGE — The Senate 

Wednesday approved a’ congressional 
dy redistricting plan that creates separate 

black-majority and Jefferson Parish- 
majority districts, but Gov. David C. 
Treen’s administration began to show 
its muscle in the remap controversy. 

In effect, the advocates of the Jef- 
ferson-Black Caucus plan split a doub- 
leheader with the Treen forces. A 

* House committee adopted a Treen- 

A
 
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

Cy 
e
e
 

Nt
 
S
a
s
i
 

backed plan that likely will be voted on 
by the full House Thursday, while the 
Senate rejected another Treen plan by 
only three votes, 

In other redistricting matters, the 
Senate also approved a plan to reap- 
portion its own election districts, the 
House passed a House redistricting 
plan of its own, and a House committee 
and the full Senate approved conflict- 
ing proposals to reapportion the state’s 
Public Service Commission districts. 
Meanwhile, Wednesday’s Senate 

action on congressional reapportion- 
ment leaves that complicated battle in 
this posture: 

The Senate has now sent the House a bill whose principal backers are Sens. Joseph M. Tiemann, D-Metairie, and Samuel B. Nunez, D-Chalmette. The 
measure puts nearly all of New 

Tiemann plan if it reaches his desk, but 
the Senate approved it by a vote of 
31-6. : 

That bill now goes to the House and 
Govermental Affairs Committee, 
which Wednesday voted down an iden- 
tical plan by a vote of 12-3. 
Amid heavy lobbying by Treen aides, 

the House committee, by an identical 
12-3 vote, approved a motion by Rep. 
Terry Gee, R-Algiers, that jt send to 
the House floor the governor's “Pro- 
posal B,” a plan that leaves New 
Orleans area districts much as they 
are today. 

Rep. Diana A. Bajoie, D-New Orleans, opposed the plan because, she said, “it continues to dilute the black vote.” The plan leaves District 2, a combined Orleans-Jefferson district, only about 44 percent black. She said she will try to change it on the House floor... * js ot 
Rep. John A. Alario Jr., D-Westwego, 

and Jefferson Parish Assessor 
Lawrence E. Chehardy, urged the 
panel to approve the Nunez-Tiemann 
plan. Chehardy said jt “recognizes the 
dramatic changes that have taken 
effect in Jefferson Parish. . , No 
one can adequately represent (both) 
New Orleans and Jefferson because 
they are opposing views.” 
‘Reps. Emile “Peppi” Bruneau, Ind- 

New Orleans, and Lane A. Carson, R- 

passes 
ssionai remap 

offered three alternate proposals for congressional redistricting. Proposal Cy! 
has little effect on the New Orleans 
arca, but revamps Southwest Louisiana 
by placing Lake Charles and Alexan- 
dria in the same district.) 

The Bares amendment. was beaten 
28-7, with the New Orleans area deleg- ation voting solidly against it. , ° 

Sen. Cecil Picard, D-Maurice, then brought up Treen’s “Proposal A,” which makes little change in the pres- 
Orleans or else- 

ent districts in New 
where. 

With Treen’s top aides, John Cade 
and William Nungesser, lobbying in the rear of the chamber, the proposal 
made a surprisingly good showing, los- ing only 20-17. ~~ °° 

Nearly all the New Orleans area 
“delegation voted against it, with the exception of Sens, B. B. 
“burn, D-Bogalusa, and Fritz H.  Wind- 
“horst, D-Algiers, both of whom voted § “yes, and Sen. Theodore M. Hickey, D- . 
New Orleans, who was absent. ; 

The Senate 
Nunez-Tiemann plan 30-6, with all 
New Orleans area members except the 
absent Hickey voting yes. 

Nunez strongly attacked the sugges- 
tion th 
him t 
Repub 

. of Algiers. 

} sian 

18
61
 

°C 
Ja
qu
ia
ao
N 

‘A
ep
si
ny
, 

“Sixty” Ray-   
then approved the 

at his plan is designed to permit 
0 run for Congress against 
lican US. Rep. Bob Livingston ' 

¢ 
g]
 
ad
ed
 

‘| 
u
o
n
d
a
g
 

New Orleans, objected on grounds that ~ 
New Orleans has always been split : 
between two congressional districts. 

In the Senate, Nunez had better luck. 
His plan had been approved Tuesday 
by the Senate and Governmental 
Affairs Committee by a 7-0 vote, and 
he easily beat back an attempt by Sen. 
Allan Bares, D-Lafayette, to rej lace it 
with Treen’s “Proposal C.” {Treen 

“Tle said he has no plans to run for 
Congress and if he did, he would prefer 
to run from the present 1st District, 
which includes a large share of New 
Orleans. 

Nunez said the proposed new district 
voted 65 percent for Republican Treen 
in his race against Democrat Louis 
Lambert, while the present/1st District gave Treen only 55 percent. 

Orleans in a district with a 54 percent black majority, and most of Jefferson I in a district shared with St. Bernard, Plaquemines and part of Algiers but which Jefferson is in a position to dom- 
inate. 

Legislative sources said Treen was {calling lawmakers Wednesday nd 
making it clear he will veto the Nunez- 

7 
tn
g 

g
p
 

TG JA 
rughtn Llib 

rrr I ——— ee et ey eS hr pe ——————————— 
= tt ht mig, —— Ei 

a Lol 
PAL CIRIRS: 5) 

  

tas Li 
d ST . 

CPV 

    

A
I
N
N
A
V
I
I
d
-
S
A
N
I
L
 

I
H
L
 

-
S
3
L
V
L
S
 

F
H
L
 

/ 
i 

3,     2 }  



———— ee £4 

House comgittee refuses ® vote —, 
on Senate-passed redistrict plan 
By JACK WARDLAW 
Capital bureau 
BATON ROUGE — The process of 

redrawing the boundaries of Louisi- 
ana’s eight congressional districts 
stalled Thursday when a House com- 
mittee refused to take final action on a 
Senate-passed redistricting bill. 
And a district reapportionment plan 
backed by Gov. David C. Treen 
remained on the House calendar as the 
lower chamber became embroiled in a 
day-long discussion of the governor’s 

. $70 million plan to aid local govern- 
ments. 

The House and Governmental 
Affairs Committee was to meet again 
Friday. Chairman John W. Scott, D- 

“. Alexandria, promised that the Senate 
-.7, bill — or some amended version of it 

_ — will be voted on at that meeting. 

Only two congressional redistricting 
plans are before the Legislature, 
though others are waiting in the wings 
and there are unconfirmed reports that 
a new plan might bé on the way from 
the delegation in Washington. 

The two “live” plans, and their sta- 
tus in the legislative process, are: 

— Treen’s “Proposal B.” One of 
three plans offered.by the governor, 
this one leaves New: Orleans area dis- 
tricts much as they are today but 
makes extensive changes in South and 
Central Louisiana. It shifts Lafayette 
from the 7th District of Democratic 
US. Rep. John Bredux of Crowley, to 

the 8th District of Democratic Rep. 
Gillis W. Long of Alexandria. 

That plan was approved Wednesday 
by ‘the  House*and Governmental * © 
Affairs Committet and had been 

expected to be debated Thursday after- 
noon by the full House. But the House 
took all day on the local government 
bill and the remap plan was held up 
until Friday at the earliest. 

'— The Senate plan, co-authored by 
Sens. M. Joseph Tiemann, D-Metairie, :.i ; 
and Samuel B. Nunez, D-Chalmette. ¥; 
That plan splits Orleans and Jefferson, #* 
making a black-majority district out of Ff: 
most of Orleans and making Jefferson 
the base of a revised 1st District that’ 
would include most of Jefferson, part 
of Algiers and the parishes of St. Ber- 
nard and Plaquemines. j 

That plan cleared the Senate 
Wednesday and was debated for more 
than two hours ‘Thursday morning in 
House and Governmental Affairs until 

Turn to next page 

  

V 

* Section 1, Page 22 . Friday, November 6, 1981 3 The Times-Picayune/The States-item 
  

Panel delays 
Continued from Page 21. 

the panel decided to delay final action 
until Friday. : 

The committee, which had approved 
Treen's Proposal B by a 12-3 vote 
Wednesday, came within a single vote 
Thursday of scrapping it and replacing 

it with the Senate plan. 
Nunez and Jefferson Parish Assessor 

Lawrence E. Chehardy presented the 
Senate plan to the committee, urging 
members to approve it and make Jef- 
ferson the base of a congressional dis- 
trict for the first time. 

Rep. Emile “Peppi” Bruneau, Ind- 
New Orleans, suggested that a better 
idea would be to revise the 2nd District 
of Democratic Rep. Lindy Boggs of 
New Orleans to give Jefferson a 
majority in that district. He said he is 
working on such a plan. : 

State Rep. Terry Gee, R-Algiers, 
moved that the committee junk the 

Senate plan and replace it with Treen’s 
Proposal B. SE 

Rep. Luke LeBlanc, D-Lafayette, 
objected, saying that the Treen plan . 
“destroys the base of Breaux’s dis- 
trict.” nl 
“I think Gov. Treen has gone off the 

deep end, trying to do this to Lafayette 
Parish ‘which gave him 30,000 votes.in 
the election,” LeBlanc. said. 

Rep. John A. Alario Jr., D-Westwego, 
said the Treen plan ‘‘does more 
damange than many others I've seen.” 

Gee’s motion first lost on a 7-6 vote, 
but when LeBlane asked the commit- 
tee to approve the Senate plan, that 
also lost 7-6. After more discussion and 
with two more committee members in 
the room, Gee tried again and the 
Treen plan was adopted as.an amend- 
ment to the Senate bill by an 8-7 vote. 

Gee then tried to get the bill 
reported to the floor, but Rep. James 
Martin, D-Welsh, who had voted with | 
Gee on the amendment, said he would 
not vote to report the bill out. He said 
he has been told that the congressional 
delegation plans to produce a new plan 
Friday, and urged the panel to wait 
and consider that before taking a final 
votes At Martin's urging, members 
voted to defer action. 

A check of congressional offices in 
Washington produced no confirmation 
that a new plan is in the works. Sources 
here said some amendmen  » the 

a EAE FATT dial Zeer ed 

remap vote | 
delegation-backed plan are on the way,” [& 
probably creating a Jefferson-majority 

2nd district. 

Legislative sources said House mem- 
bers are in no hurry to send any bill to 
the Senate because they believe sena- 
tors will amend their plan to conform 
to the Senate version — exactly as Gee 
‘did to the Senate bill Thursday. 

If that attitude prevails, both houses Ei 
could spend the next few days playing Jed 
cat-and-mouse before the matter fin- 
ally gets before a joint House-Senate 
conference committee. x 

- Earlier Thursday the House and 
Governmental Affairs Committee 
challenged the Senate by taking the 
Senate-passed bill revising the five 
Public Service Commission Districts 
and amending it to conform to a bill 
the committee approved Wednesday. 
The House bill is on the calendar 
awaiting action. : 2 
"The House and Senate Public Service 

. Commission redistricting plans are 
similar except in one detail: : 

The Senate plan leave the parishes 
of St. Bernard and Plaquemines in the - [J 
2nd District of Commissioner George 
Ackel, making up a population deficit 
in the 1st District of Commissioner 
John Schwegmann by adding St. Tam- 
many Parish to it. Schwegmann has 
said he would prefer adding St. Ber- 
nard and Plaquemines, but Ackel does 
not want to give them up. : 

The House plan follows Schweg-’ 
mann’s wishes, giving him St. Bernard 
and Plaquemines, leaving: St. Tam- 
many where it is, in the 3rd District of 
Commissioner Louis Lambert. Ta 

Nunez, who represents St.- Bernard 
and Plaquemines in the Senate, urged 
the panel to leave the parishes in 
Ackel’s district. Rep. Edward C. Sco- 
gin, R-Slidell, said St. Tammany resi- 
dents want to keep their district as it is 
now. ; : 

The committee agreed with Scogin, 
voting 14-0 to amend the Senate bill to 
make it the same as the House version. 
If the House passes the bill with those 
‘amendments, the Senate is likely to 
reject them, throwing the issue into a } 
conference committee. 

If the House passes its own bill, the 
Senate will have a chance to amend it. 
Either House action could come Fri- 
day. : ; 

“gwen, a inal 

by 
B
i
 4

 

18
61
9 

19
qu
id
a0
N 

‘A
ep
ui
] 

« 
| 

- 1
7 

98
eq
 

‘| 
uo
no
eg
 

  
  

eae       
  
   



  FRR 0 th % 

  

1981 November 6, ay, Frid , Page 18 tion 1   

Che Times-P Jicomune 
es-ltem The Stat fren e——   

5 

Issued Dally by The Times-Picayune Publishing Corp: = 

  
News ; Associate Editor, 

Associate Editor, Editorials 

  
" ASHTON PHELPS JR. 
President and Publisher 

.. ASHTON PHELPS 
Chairman of the Board 

. v 

EDITORIALS 

    at 3800 Howard Ave., New Orleans, La. 70140 .         

- 
y
w
 

~. 

E
N
N
 

S
A
M
s
 

A 
SAMIR 

T
E
 

A
 
R
M
R
 

“
A
F
A
R
 

~~ 
k
a
n
a
 

N
B
R
 

h
s
 
A
T
 

HRN 
AN 
R
R
S
 

P
I
E
U
N
A
N
G
 
W
N
 

VABAN 
N
E
S
S
 

N
\
 

fren 
A
E
 

A 
A
R
 

= 
4 

T
e
 

T
I
T
T
Y
 
T
E
R
E
 

TREE 
T
R
 

e
t
 

E
T
S
 

I
 
r
v
 

0 
T
E
E
R
 

2 
3 

I
I
E
 

4 
N
a
 

: 
C
S
E
 
A
N
N
 

SN 
T
A
N
 
AN 

AN 
R
E
 
N
e
 

M
A
D
R
 

 
 

 
 

I
R
E
 S
N
 

—
 

R
S
 

. 

S
A
N
N
A
 

N
N
 

S
A
 

N
A
N
T
O
N
 
w
a
n
 

N
N
 

R
R
 

 
—
 

- 
q 
E
R
R
 

C
A
L
S
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 



  

  

  

  
Gt 
it 

“hy 

Treen remap plan 
dumped by House 

By JACK WARDLAW 
Capital bureau 
BATON ROUGE — The House dealt 

Gov. David C. Treen a stunning defeat 
Friday, rejecting his proposals for 
reapportioning the state’s congres- 
sional districts and adopting instead a 

] Senate-backed plan. 
The plan the House approved creates 

a 2nd Congressional District in Orleans 
Parish with a black-population major- 
ity and a 1st District in which Jeffer- 
son Parish voters would make up an 
estimated 72 percent of the district 
total. 

After the vote, Treen issued a terse 
statement that, “Any bill in that form 
is unacceptable and without question 
will be vetoed.” 

That plan was approved by the Sen- 
ate Thursday but had been rejected by 
a House committee. It proved a lot 
more popular than expected on the 
House floor. 

“This plan is good for everybody,” 
said Rep. Mary Landrieu; D-New .. 
Orleans. “It’s good for the blacks, it’s 
good for the liberals, it’s good for Jef- 
ferson Parish. It'll keep them on their 
side of the line and out of our hair.” gs 

In the course of a debate that lasted B® 
more than two hours, the House voted 
51-47 to reject Treen’s “Proposal A,” a| 
plan that would have made little; 

_ change in the existing districts; voted 
59-37 to substitute the Senate plan for 
it; and finally voted 62-37 to send the! 
revised bill to the Senate, where it is 
expected to get a friendly reception. 
inasmuch as the Senate gave an identi- | 
cal proposal a 30-6 vote of approval. | 

Under the plan approved by the 
House Friday, the 2nd Congressional 
District would be composed of all of 
Orleans, except for part of Algiers. The’ 
district now is represented by Lindy 
Boggs of New Orleans. 

iif The 1st Congressional District — jp 
* where the incumbent is now U.S. Rep. 

Turn to Section 1, Page 4 

  

wang 
0 Ag, Lat 

sid NC 

te now 

Adib ii 
nt hye 
ASTIN 

  

  

2 Louisiana RID A - 
oppose redistricting plan 

- BATON ROUGE (UPI) — Spo- 
kesmen for two congressmen whose 
districts would be radically changed 
by a remapping plan gaining 
momentum in the Legislature, said 
Friday they oppose the proposal. 
The House redistricting plan drasti-. 
cally alters the political turf of 
Republican Reps. Bob Livingston of 
Algiers and Henson Moore of Baton 
Rouge. 

However, Rep. Lindy Boggs of 
New Orleans did not object to the 
Legislature’s proposal to give her 

+ 2nd District, which now has half of 
New Orleans and half of Jefferson 
Parish, a majority of black voters. 

“I certainly have no personal 
problem with it at all,” she said 
from her New Orieans home. 

- we'll’ wait ‘until the dust settles: 

Treadwell said. “He's jm happy | 

“This plan has not passed Hi ‘ 

before we start worrying about that 
thing,” Livingston spokesman Dan ‘|: 
Treadwell said in a telephone inter- * 
view. b) 

A spokesman for Moore, who. 
would pick up Republican strong-'- 
holds in St. Tammany Parish, said. |. 
he opposes splitting Baton Rouge, a}! 
union and Democratic area, even: {. 
though it would be to his politi- ©] 
cal advantage. wrede. 

Livingston's political base would: |. 
be shifted from St. Tammany andi'}:- 
New Orleans to Jefferson Parish. ..... 

“I'm not going to say he absd-"'} 
lutely will not accept the plamiti’d- 

with what he’s del     

=e: Eh 

Sle 2: ey 

EH hr; . 
EPH 

Sn 11 ai 9 

  

  

      

  

     



  

  

  

  
  

  

  

'y 

3 

  

Section 1, Page 4 

5 Beicginz: 

3 4 

Saturday, November 7, 1981 3 The Times-Picayune /%& 
  

Treen’ s plan dumped 
Continued from Page 1 : 

TROBivingston of Algiers — would be 
composed of all of West Jefferson 
except Grand Isle, all of East Jefferson 
except Kenner, about half of Algiers 
and all of St. Bernard and Plaquemines 
parishes. 

The plan also would have the effect 
of Rutting St. Tammany Parish — 
which now js part of the 1st District — 
inteethe 6th District, now represented 
by Henson Moore of Baton Rouge. 

Here is how New Orleans area mem- 
bers'Yoted on final passage of the con- 
gressional reapportionment plan: 
For the bill, as amended to encom- 

pass the Senate plan: Reps. Alexander, 
Bajoie, Charbonnet, Connor, Heaton, 
Jac§sbn, Johnson, Landrieu and Water- 
meier, all of New Orleans; Alario, 

‘ Cusimano, Dastugue, D’Gerolamo, 

: ~The governor had the votes in the 

= Guidry, Lancaster, Leithman and Ullo, 
all @f Jefferson; Accardo of St. John 
the Baptist Parish; Chaisson of St. 
Cha Parish; Fernandez of St. Ber- 
nardhand Patti of Plaquemines. 

A ainst: Hainkel, Bagert, Bruneau, 
Carson, Faucheux; Gee and Schmitt, all 
of New Orleans; and Scogin and Strain 
of St.Tammany. 

Apsent or not voting: Byrnes of New 
Orleans and Bopp of St. Bernard. 
ine fight actually started an hour 

before the House convened, as the 
House and Governmental Affairs Com- 
mitt¢e met to take up the Senate- 
passed bill. 

committee, which proceeded to gut the 
Senate bill and replace it with Treen’s 
Proposal A. 

When the House convened] Rep. John 
W. “Jock” Scott, D-Alexandria, chair- 
man of House and Governmental 
Affairs, began presenting the Senate 
bill'as amended. 
“That drew a quick objection from 
Rep. «John A. Alario Jr., D-Westwego, - 
who'said the bill's author, Sen. Samuel 
B: Nunez, D-Chalmette, has designated 
him’ as its floor manager. The point is 
important because under House rules, 
if the bill is sent to a conference com-' 
mittee, the speaker must name its 
floor manager to the six-member con- 
ference. 

Placing Alario on the evdfereine 
. committee would have enabled him to 
vote with thc Senate conferees for the 
Senate plan, something House Speaker 
John J. Hainkel Jr. opposes. : 

  

After a huddle, Hainkel and Alario 
agreed that the House bill would be § 

taken up instead of the Senate-passed 
measure. The House bill, at that point, 
embodied Treen’s Proposal B, a. plan 
that little affects the New Orleans area 
but makes extensive changes else- 
where in the state. 

Scott sought to amend the Hin to 
encompass Treen’s Proposal A, consid- 
ered more acceptable i in the House. 

But the amendment ran into a ‘buzz- ou 
saw of opposition. Alario said the 
administration was using “divide and bi 
conquer” tactics, trying to pick up |f 
votes with minor revisions of Proposal 
A. 

Rep. Diana. A 'Bajoie, D-New 
Orleans, said “I don’t understand why 
the governor is determined to ignore 
the black citizens of this state.” 

Bajoie was asked if she liked Treen’s 
Proposal A better than his Proposal B. |} 
“It’s like going from the skillet to the 
pan,” she said. “It’s hot both places.” 

Rep. V.J. Bella, D-Berwick, objected Ei 
to Treen's plan to split St. Mary Par- 
ish. “Once you divide my parish, I have 

"no more stroke. I don’t want two con- 
gressmen,” he said. 

When the House tried to vote on 
Scott’s amendment, the electronic vot- 

ing machine broke down and a roll call 
vote was taken. To the surprise of |E:i=> 
many, Treen’s plan was rejected 51-47. 

Alario then moved in for the kill, 
“bringing the Senate plan to a quick | fries 
vote. With the tide now running his 
way, it passed 59-37. The House then 
gave the bill final approval 62-37. 

Alario then tried to bring to a vote 
the bill already passed by the Senate. 
Had he amended it back into the form 
in which the Senate passed it, the mea- 
sure would have gone straight to the 
governor without any further legisle: 
tive action. 

But House members were restive, 
and they rejected a move to take up 
Senate bills. Alario then had the Senate 
bill made special order of the day 
Monday. 

Legislators on both sides predicted 
the administration will turn on the lob- 
bying steam over the weekend, hoping 

.to salvage some kind of a compromise. 
Treen is adamantly opposed to the Sen- |, 
ate plan, reportedly because he fears it 
would cause the political demise of 
Republican Rep. Livingston. 

  

  
  

  

NE Nz Hae SIAM ds ho ln 

   



  

  

Section I, Page 13 
  
Wednesday, November 11, 1981 

  

  BS Zid GRR Bg, 

i. | 

wr i 
har TR Ac gry 

w 

[3 
\ 

  

THE TIMES.PICAYUNE / THE STATES-ITEM 
  

  

  

Down in basement, 
new districts shape up 

By JACK WARDLAW 
Capital bureau 
BATON ROUGE. — State Senate 

leaders said late Tuesday they were 
“very close” to an agreement with 
Gov. David C. Treen's administration: 
and Louisiana's congressmen on the 
explosive issue of reapportioning the 
state's eight congressional districts. 

“We've been meeting since 8:30 
a.m.” said Sen. Samuel B. Nunez, D- 
Chalmette, shortly before 6 p.m. “I 
think we're about to get it worked 
out.” 

Meeting in the Senate offices in the’ 
Capitol sub-basement were senators, 
several congressmen, aides to Treen 
and representatives of others. 

Their aim was to resolve differences 
on congressional reapportionment 
between Treen and the Senate, led by 
Nunez. while satisfying the eight 
incumbent congressmen who will have 
to run in the districts in 1982. 

Since the special legislative session 
started last week, a tug-of-war has 
been fought between the administra- 

tion. which wants to leave the congres- 
sional districts much as they are, and 
the Senate, which has insisted on a 
Nunez proposal that would provide a 
black-majority district in New Orleans 
and another district dominated by Jef- 
ferson Parish. 

The Nunez plan has passed the 
House and Senate at different times 
during the session, but Treen has 
declared he will veto it if it reaches his 
desk. 

Details of the plan that was report- 
edly near approval at Tuesday's 
closed-door session were sketchy, but 
Nunez said it likely wi do the follow- 
ing: 3) 

— Leave the 1st District of Republi- 
can U.S.'Rep. Bob Livingston of . 
Algiers much as it is but minus much 
of its present black population. - + 

, — The 3rd District of Democrat W.J. 
“Billy” Tauzin of Thibodaux would ° 
pick up even more of Metairie’ than if 
contains at present. Jefferson Parish 
now makes up about 42 percent of the 
district. 

- The 2nd District of Beadle 
Rep. Lindy Boggs of New Orleans 
would become a Jefferson-majority 
district, but also would gain more 
black voters from Jefferson. : 

The remaining hang-ups appeared to 
be just how large the Jefferson and 
black percentages in District 2 would 

The. negotiations were continuing 
late Tuesday in an effort to get a plan 
before the Legislature Wednesday that 
can be approved so the Legislature 
can adjourn. Senate President Michael 
H. O'Keefe, D-New Orleans, said he 
hopes to wind up the sessiom by 
Wednesday evening, four days ahead of 
schedule. Most of the other busihess 
was completed Tuesday. . 

The atmosphere was: far diffetent 
. late Tuesday from what it was on Non- 

‘ day, when the ‘House-and Senate 
appeared at loggerheads on the gon- 

. gressional remap issue and some were 
predicting either a new special session 

" Turn to next page 

Gay dk 

   



  

  

33 
Edu Aisin 

  

- Compromise 
SME Gry oo 

brewing | 
Ets aa 502 

Continued from Page 13 

to deal with it. or hojding, the matter 
for attention when the : Legislature ¢ con 
venes for its regular’ session in’ April, 

On Monday, the House rejected. ihe ; 
ed the, same Nunez plan if had a 

previous Friday. That Shou have sen; 
the matter to conjete : 

A ay 
ithouf its being named. 

ate floor S0-w 

eag can 

opi 
> Yonry Issenier ven u. ql EOEY 

“tal “Affairs Cormitteh. ‘abich at’ 
O'Keefe’ $ request took the bill the 

House passed Friday and’ sent it to 
“the floor without debate. 

0 Keefe Wanted the bill on the Sen-' 
Li reement is. 

ed into 

wos 

Neithér O'Keefe nor Holise, Speaker Saupidets, D-Mamou, who said he 
John J. Hainkel, D-New Orleans, exer- 
cised his right to name his three con- 
ferees, leaving the reapportionment. 
issue in limbo. But O'Keefe and Hain . 
kel apparently were aware of the 
negotiations going on in the Senate 
sub-basement;. and did not want; ‘to 
bring the matter toa head too early) £0 

The only definite action taken on 
congressional reappoftionment Tues-,. 
day was by the Senate and Gaovernmen-. 

objected to being kept waiting to act on 
a strictly procedural matter. ? 
. Among those milling about the Capi- 

' tol as the drama was played out behind 
the scenes was former Gov. Edwin W. 
Edwards, who said he was staying out . | 

. of the reapportionment controversy. 

.¢ .Edwards-was asked if he planned "> by] 
submit a plan of his own. “This is not a: 
good. year. for governors to submit _ 
reagportiopment plans,” he replied. * 

  

    

  

 



  
  

  

  

"WEATHER 

FAIR THURSDAY becoming partly cloudy at 
night and winds from the northeast at pto10 
mph is the National Weather Service forecast. 
High Thursday, upper 60s; low, mid 60s. High 

  

Page 4.   ing 73 low, 55. Map delalls, Sec. 2     

et 

  

  

"THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 

  

  

  

Shite X {3% yn REIL bition ity 
2 i 3k hi i Ps feat 

  

  

12, 

By JACK WARDLAW ah 
Capital bureau . : i i 

‘BATON ROUGE — Peis strong i. 
objections’ from black lawmakers, a 
joint House-Senate conference commit-- 
tce late Wednesday approved a com- a 
‘promise plan for redrawing Louisi- 
ana’s eight congressional districts. 

* The black, spokesmen opposed the: 
plan because it fails to create a black- 
majority district in New Orleans, a 
longtime Black Caucus goal. 

The plan still needs approval from: 
the full House and Senate before going - 
to Gov.’ David C. Treen. Earlier : 

Wednesday, Treen’ issued a statement "- og 
“saying he-can,sign the plan, though he : 

oa * Said he still preferred the plans he sub- - 
ri neR mitted fo the Legislature.” |= Na 

The" six-member conference commit. 
" gS tee’ approved. the plan by a 4-2 vote. 

‘ Voting yes were Sens. Michael H. 
™. O'Keefe, ;D:New, Orleans; Thomas. A." HudSo;, D-Baton ‘Rouge; Samu sel Bo  ller Wednesday because Treen delayed 

Nunez, D-Chalmette; and Rep. Emile 
_“Peppi” Bruneau, Ind-New Orleans; 

Voting no were Reps. John W. 
“jock”: Scott; D-Alexandria, and John 
"A. Alario Jr., D-Westwego. 

Nunez, Who pushed all session ok a 

“majority and a Jefferson- -majority ri 
trict, said he was accepting the com- 
_. promise because “Treen had Youd to 

veto his plan’ © = “i : 
“This is better than no plan at all” ". 

‘ Nunez said. 
Scott disagreed, saying that “it does 

us no good to send the governor a plan 
he will sign if it is going to be ruled 
invalid by the courts.” '- - 

Scott contended that the failure to : 
provide a black district will doom the 

"plan with the U.S. Justice Department 
. and the courts. He proposed an alter-’ 
"native providing a district 50.2 percent 
black in ‘New Orleans, but it was Voted 
down 5-1. ’ 

Alario said he was voting against 
the compromise out of loyalty to his 
allies in the House in the effort to get ’ 

} the Ny unez plan passed. | 
Wok 

; x 

ER ft, PRESS yd Tm \ 

“Black Rniakers appearing | in oppo: .- 
ton to the compromise ‘were Sen.. 
: Henry E, Braden IV, D-New Orleans, 
and Reps. Diana A.'Bajoie and Johnny: 
.Jackson Jr., D-New Orleans. Braden - I 

+ called he plan. patently unconstitu-, ne 
tional”; +x Vp And fee 7 

“Tell me any Thy in this’ ites a. 
, black can get elected in a district that. 
is only 38 percent black,” said Bajoie. 

‘ “The only: thing this compromise : 
' compromises is the’ black" ciilzens | os 
:New Orleans,” said Jackson. -:ij* 

- The special legislative session, ‘was. 
expected to end Thursday once the con, LL BS 
_ gressional matter is resolved. : Sg 

The compromise was’ ome out 
"during the night Tuesday at a meeting 
in the Senate subbasement amor: pep 

v;resentatives of the ‘congressional ’, 
“delegation, the governor. and legisla-. oy : 

» tive leaders.” ** "r ehS S LT Smet TU 
Action on the plan was held up ear- 

giving it final approval, ‘reportedly 
, because he objected" to" his home pre-.: 
cinct in Metairie being in the district of. /." | 
2nd District Rep. Lindy Boggs, a Dem- 5 
ocrat: But-Treen’s office later denied - pay TF 

* that was the hangup, and late Wednes- 
..day afternoon the governor issued a = ‘ ¥ 
* statement saying that while he per-* 
* ferred other plans, the compromise”, 

* was within the parameters of what ye 
. could sign. 7, ¢ 

. Treen earlier said he’ would vii 
: a plan by Sen. Samuel B. Nunez, D- 
Chalmette, that created a klack-major- 

“ity district in New Orleans ‘and a Jef- -" 
ferson Parish-dominated 1st District, ~ 

The compromise plan contains. no 
.. black majority district but it does give , 
* Jefferson Parish a majority in District 

2. Here is a rundown on its effects’ on 
the New Orleans area: 

* District 1 of Republican Rep. Robert 
Livingston of Algiers would keep the 

: parishes of St. Tammany, Plaquemines 
and St. Bernard but its Orleans portion 
would be substantially changed. 
RU would keep Algiers and the Lake- 

hd “Turn to Section 1, Pago 4, Yi   
  

   



x ) 
  

  

  

IME 8 SSA FI 

  

] Continued from Page 1 + 
~ front, but would lose black precincts in the 9th and 7th Wards and would dip . through the City Park area into the University ‘section to pick up large © numbers of white voters there. 

The new district would be_ 68 per- © cent white and 62 percent of its voters would live in New Orleans. : " Boggs’ District 2 would keep West * Jefferson and most of East Jefferson south of Interstate 10. In New Orleans, + it would lose the University section and + keep a wide belt of mostly black areas - along the river from around Jefferson Avenue all the way through the French ‘Quarter and into the 9th Ward. 
. It would keep the Carrollton area, but within Orleans that would not con- nect with the rest of the 2nd District except through Jefferson Parish, being cut off by the University Section. 

The district would be 44.5 percent 

ee : ih awCdnaGp pidil 
df 

black and 56 percent 

-' The 3rd District of 

henley LUT 
i GEN Rp TC LTE 

é 
Ya approved 

of its residents ‘would live in Jefferson. 

Rep. W.J. Tau: zin, D-Thibodaux, would keep its pres- ent Acadiana parishes and the part of East Jefferson north of I-10, some 161,000 Jefferson voters who would make up about 31 percent of the new district. . Hr Nunez told the conference commit- tee he would have preferred to have - kept his plan with a black-majority and a Jefferson-majority district, but “the -Bovernor would have vetoed ijt and we would have wound up with no plan atall.” -. ae 

Jefferson Parish Assessor Lawrence 3 E. Chehardy echoed his sentiments, f saying that “it would be a disaster. for the Legislature to leave with no con. & gressional plan.” y a Scott said the lack of a black dis. trict is “purely political.” oe 

  

: i iE 

Hart i: 
EE AG EY 

 



    
  

Treen says remap plan. 

New districts outlined, Page 29 

. By JACK WARDLAW 
Capital burean - ge : 
BATON ROUGE — The Legislature 

' Thursday sent Gov. David C. Treen a 
congressional redistricting plan that 
the governor believes will meet the 

~ approval of the U.S. Justice Depart- 
ment and the federal courts. 

Both houses voted to ratify a confer- 
ence committee compromise reappor- 
tioning Louisiana’s eight congressional 
districts. i 2 

But in a last-ditch effort to get the 
Legislature to scuttle the plan, nearly 

. eral court review,” said Treen. “I don 
grounds 

Il meet court approval 
think it is attackable on 
at all.” ing Bei 

Treen said he has had “informal : 
communications” with. the Justice’ 

racial 

. Department on the matter but refused 
to answer questions about those’ con- 
tacts. * 

The situation as the Legislature con- 
vened for the session's final day Thurs- 
day morning was that the conference 
committee report, approved by a 4-2 
vote late Wednesday night, was up for 

« approval by both houses. Had either 
house rejected it, either a new confer- 
ence committee would have had to 

t would hiave been dead for the: 
daniel 

The House: took upthie' matte first,’ 
debating it for more than-an Houp. 
before voting 65-27 to approveit. + ~ ! 
‘Black’ lawmakers. took’ turns den-.. ' 
ouncing the’ plan and’ predicted*ity. 
demise in the courts: The legislative . 
Black Caucus had been part of a coali~ 
tion behind the “Nunez Plan,” named 
for its'principal backer, Sen. Samuel B. . ° 

*Nurez, D-Cha)mettg; jt. would have 
created a 2nd District composed of 
most of New Orleans, with a 54 per- 
cent black population. That plan‘also 
would have created a Jefferson-based 
1st District in which: Republican Rep.   every black lawmaker took the floor to 

denounce the proposal and vow to fight 
it in the courts. ji : : 

“This iS patently unconstitutional,” 
said Sen. Henry E. Braden IV, D-New 
Orleans, arguing that the Legislature 
should have created a black-majority 
district in New Orleans. oes 

“It means that some federal judge is 2::s 
will be drawing the plan,” said Rep. 3st 
Charles Jones, D-Monroe. i 

I EN oR 
convene or congressional redistricting: Turn to Section I, Page §- ~ 

  

a i ® 
Treen said at a news conference that iE 

he couldn't disagree more. : 
“I feel very confident that the plan 

will meet Justice iy ii and fed- 
12 

  

Z 
les] 

i= 

o 
| A 
pI 

| m 
| > 
ZZ 
2 

nae] 

= 
th 
é 

| on 
] 

® 

i] 
3 

  

= | 
& 
Pg 

sh
y W, 

ne
k 

Haig a : : ! if i has whit taka. 
  LS,

   nw 

  n 

  

  
  

  nl
 

    

R
N
R
 

“
n
s
 

- 
T
R
S
,
 

ic
i 

igh 
A
 

P
E
R
E
 

b
i
d
 

A
 

  
         



  

  

s Tak 
= 

B “ 

tay wjoialidin 5 $9 y tin i ¥ 
t 

Continued from Pagel ., 

Bob Livingston of Algiers would have faced 
a 72 percent Jefferson majority. h 

In the face of Treen's pledge to vetd 
such a plan, Nunez:and other proponents of 

-the plan agreed to accept. the compromise, 
-and Nunez helped lead the fight for its 
“approval atthe conference committee. ; 

Black legislators picked up some support, 
but not enough: The Orleans delegation split 
10-7 against the compromise, but the Jet- 
ferson délegation split 7-3 for it. 5 

Rep. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans 
said she feared it'would cause New Orleans 
to lose control of at least one of its con- 
gressmen, and perhaps both over the course 

2 0f the next decade. : 
u Here is how New Orleans area House 
g members voted -on final approval of the 
picompromise: - div a 
»; For: Hainkel, Bagert, Bruneau, Byrnes, 
rr Carson, Gee and Schmitt, all of Orleans; 
Cusimano, Dastugue, D'Gerolamo, Guidry, 
Grisbaum, Lancaster and Ullo, all of Jef- 
ferson; Patti ‘of Plaquemines, and Scogin 
and BR of mane, 

rb » 
» 

  

cour 

  

Against: Alexander, Bajoie, Charbonnet, 
Connor, Faucheux, Héaton, Jackson, John- 
son, Landrieu and Watermeier, all of 
Orleans; Alario, Doucet and Leithman of 
Jefferson; Chaisson of St. Charles; Accardo 
of St. John the Baptist; Fernandez of St. 
Bernard. : 

Absent or not voting: Bopp of St. Ber- 
nard. 
‘The Senate took only a few minutes to 

dispose of the matter. Nunez urged the Sen- 
ate to accept the compromise, Braden 
argued against it, and the Senate voted 25- 
10 to ratify the conference report. © 

Here is how New Orleans area sena- 
tors voted: 

For: Casey, Hickey, Windhorst and 
O’Keefe of Orleans; Lauricella, Nicholson 
and Tiemann of Jefferson; Rayburn and 
Dykes. of St. Tammany; Landry of St. John 
the Baptist; Nunez of St. Bernard. 

Against: Braden and Jefferson of 
Orleans. oy ver, 

Absent or not voting: Kiefer of Orleans. 
Under the plan, Livingston's new 1st. Dis- 

trict is 68 percent white and 62 percent of 

i 

t will OK remap plan 
The new 2nd District of Democratic Rep. 

Lindy Boggs of New Orleans is 44.5 percent 
black and 56 percent of its residents live in 
Jefferson. The new 3rd District of Demo- 
cratic Rep. W.J. Tauzin of Thibodaux would 
have 31 percent Jefferson residents. 

". Treen said neither he nor his staff parti- (£1 
cipated in the negotiations drafting the Ln 
compromise. Some participants in the 
closed-door session Tuesday night implied 
to newsmen that aides to Treen and Living- 
ston were being consulted. 

Livingston and Republican Rep. Henson |: 
. Moore of Baton Rouge told the Washington 
" bureau of The Times-Picayune, The States- 
Item that they and their aides played a role 
in nudging the governor on the one hand a 
and the Democrats in the delegation on the |i 
other toward a compromise, i 

Treen said the first time he saw the i 
compromise plan was late Tuesday and | 
that he decided early Wednesday to accept | 

: it. He then issued a statement to that 
. effect. 

The governor said he still thinks hic Pro- | 

pg 
\ 

    

    

 



  

  

  

  

ORIALS 
  

LEDIT 
: - 
4 ? 

          
worfionment 

id R BUST 0 

JI
NN
 

2 

FNS. 

Fausice 
| wt Ay 

y- 

The special session of the Legislature has 
done its special duty — redrawing the districts 
served by the state’s congressional delegation, 
its legislators and its Public Service Commis- 
sion members — but there will clearly be more 
to it than that. According to the federal Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, the plan must be approved 
sy the U.S. Justice Department, and black leg- 
slators are expected to mount a court chal- 
ienge. ; 

The major area of change was South Louisi- 

Ainuing rise in population. And to the inevitable 
sull on redistricters to preserve the political 
*haracter of individual districts (and with it, 
inevitably, the political security of their incum- 
bents) is added the push to increase the politi- 
:al power of black voters. Black legislators 
irgue that black voters have been given short; 
hrift.. Ty Bos 
New black-majority legisla 

reated — a senate district in Baton Rouge and 
louse districts in Shreveport and the River 
’arishes. But black legislators argued that 
here should have been three more * the 
specially sought-after Black-majority cone 
ional district for New Orleans was re 

Islative districts were' 

TEés- 
GE 1a 
FOUL. 

The redistricting dance 

a 

\\, were on 
Sur WAY 

SG pr 

7 

2 

V7 

AEE 

hy Give 

Gov. David Treen says he thinks the plan will 
pass federal muster, but if it is taken to court it 
could be some time before final'judgment.. 

The patchwork the Legislature stitched 
together for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Congressional 
Districts does not argue well for the Legisla- 
ture as reapportioner. GOP Rep. Robert 
Livingston’s 1st District was rammed into the...... 
middle of Democratic Rep. Lindy Boggs’ 2nd 
District, dividing Uptown and isolating Carroll-""~ 

| ton. Jefferson Parish, instead of getting a distr='"*" ima, where the 1980 census showed a con- ict ail or almost all its own, is still divided, |, 
though it becomes the majority in the new 2nd oy 
District. Four redrawn legislative districts: 
wound up with two incumbents, ... + 2 po 
‘Without impugning the honor and responsibi- 

lity of legislators ry 

SAN Medd 

— or councilmen when redis- ". 
tricting —' there would seem to be a built-in... 
conflict of interest in an elective body’s draw-. . 

ing the districts in which its incumbent mem: 
bers will be seeking re-election. Fifteen states 
now have some form of redistricting commis- 
sions or agencies or advisory mechanisms. 
Their recommendations must still be approved 

- by their legislatures, but in most cases it is 
little more than a pro forma exercise. It might. 

- be werth looking into. \ g be J   

  

  

 



  

  

The Times-Picayune Section 1, Page 39 i, 
  
  

AGP 
rein 

  

  

  

. 
EN — RH 

| Pr Remap 
By JACK WARDLAW 

Capital bureau 

BATON ROUGE — After all the 

tumult. and the shouting, the result of 

the months-long controversy over con- 

gressional reapportionment has to be 

“% labeled a disappointment. 
It’s a disappointment to those who 

hoped we could come out with neat, 

well-drawn districts that are fair to all 

concerned. 

it's no disappointment to the incum- 

bent congressmen, all of whom wound 

up with districts that are unlikely to 

give them any problems when they 

seck re-election next year. But if that 

were the goal of the reapportionment 

process, it could have been done much 

hetter by having the governor and Leg- 

islature accept the first proposal the 

delegation submitted back in May. 

It’s only a minor disappointment to 

Jefferson Parish leaders, who wound 

up with a large enough share of the 2nd 

Congressional District to have an 

excellent chance of electing somebody 

in it when the present incumbent, 

Democrat Lindy Boggs of New 
Orleans, steps down. They wanted, of 
course, a district with all or nearly all 

of the parish united in it. : 
It’s a major disappointment to black 

leaders, who wanted a black-majority 

district in New Orleans. They didn’t get 

« it. And in an attempt to give them half 

4 a loaf, the remappers tortured the map 

©; of New Orleans unmercifully to try 

:{ to cram as many blacks as possible 

into District 2. They came out with 

only 44.5 percent, not enough to give 

the blacks much hope of electing a con- 

gressman, but enough to create a dis- 

trict that looks awful on the map and 

effectively dilutes black influence in 

the neighboring 1st District. 

® It’s hard to justify bringing the 1st 

District of Republican Rep. Robert 

© Livingston of Algiers into the univer- 

“I ity section, once the heart of the 2nd 

District, cutting the Uptown area in 

two and leaving Carrollton isolated 

from the rest of District 2's Orleans 

portion. 

All that was truly unnecessary. 

You're either creating a black district 

or you aren't. If you aren't, the best 
wr AT 

LOUISIANA 
  

* give them strong influence 

LITICS 

a disap 
thing you could do for the blacks is to 

in two dis- 

tricts instead of one. HERD Ba 

_ Outside the New Orleans area, the 

rest of the state's districts don’t look 

too bad, except that opportunities to 

make District 8 more compact were 

passed up. For no particularly good 

reason, the district now leaps across 

the Mississippi River to pick up a 

small chunk of Baton Rouge that is not 

contiguous with the rest of the district 

except across that natural geographic 

barrier. It is a strictly political cut. 

There were much simpler and more 

- sensible solutions to the redistricting 

intment 
* oT ; ati EEE a | 1 

The Legislature had no particular... 

reason to want to destroy Livingston 

who has obviously been doing his job ta... 

the satisfaction of his present comsti<~~ 

tuents. But Treen and the Republicans. 

left themselves open to attack by ear: =: 

lier trying to monkey with the districts 

of Democrats Gillis Long, Biily Tauzin 

and John Breaux to obvious GOP 

advantage. : 
Those efforts, embodied in Treen, 

Proposals B and C, got justifiably wal- 

loped in the legislative process. But"! 

they provoked a counterattack whose 

victim would have been Livingston. 
That is what the anti-Treen vote Nov. § 

in the normally pro-administration - 

~ House was all about. ; 

Treen and the 
Republicans left 

themselves cpen to 

attack by earlier 
trying to monkey 

with the districts of 
Democrats Gillis 
Long, Billy Tauzin 
and John Breaux. 

puzzle. One of the earlier delegation 

plans, or Gov. David C. Treen’s Pro- 

posal A, could have been chosen if you 

weren't going to create the black- 

majority or all-Jefferson districts. - 

Left to itself, the Legislature would 

doubtless have chosen the “Nunez 

Plan” (for Sen. Samuel B. Nunez, D- 

Chalmette), which would have created 

the black-majority and nearly all-Jef- 

ferson districts. But in the face of 

Treen's veto threat, it was abandoned 

by nearly everybody, including Nunez. 

From his viewpoint, Treen’s use of 

the veto club to beat back the Nunez 

Plan was necessary to keep fellow 

Republican Livingston from being 

thrust into a district in which 80 per- 

cent of his constituents would have 

ben new to him. 
PR Nie rie 

By bumbling around with three plans 

- instead of trying to build a majority’ 

around Proposal A, the administration, 

forced the resourceful Jefferson Parish 

delegation into a coalition with thg™ 

blacks and the incumbent Democratic . 

congressmen behind the Nunez Plar. 
When. those votes were added up, the 

administration had to spend the rest of. 

the session scrambling for cover, and’ 

only the last-minute compromise saved » 
its face. ii Ser LG aR TTR i 

The compromise was worked out in 

the Senate sub-basement by several 

congressmen and their aides, Jeiferson 

Parish Assessor Lawrence E. Che-.” 
hardy, Senate leaders and AFL-CIQ™ 

President Victor Bussie. This writer .. 

was misinformed when he reported’, 

that aides-to the governor were pres- ., 

ent. If there was: any contact with th,” 

administration, it seems to have been 

through aides to Livingston or Republi", 

can Rep. Henson Moore of Baton 

Rouge. Hoi a 

The compromise is the plan we are 

stuck with, unless the Justice Depart- 

ment or the courts throw it out — &. 

distinct possibility. i 

We are stuck with it no thanks to the". 

administration and the many interest 

groups who hoped to come out of the... 

reapportionment process with some: | 

thing to their advantage. sents 

Reapportionment is like what somes ;, 

one (Mark Twain, I think) once said 

about litigation — if you go into it Hid 

pig, you come out a sausage. 

J 

¥ 

INE] 

ag 

     



APPENDIX 3 

Nunez Plan 

 



  

H
e
 

i
.
 

oH
 

s
l
i
 
l
r
o
s
e
s
e
r
s
s
o
n
 

er
 

Il 
Ia
 

      

i I"
 

I
 

  

low
e 

w
n
 

I
h
 4 

e | oe 
.,
 

R
t
 

I  



  

  

  

  

oN 
\ INS 

. A BR INSERT 

Ne 
\) 

  

  

  

7) wt 

  

[ON IVAN BN PEER VJ} [PAC ACEIS I FAYRA FAY 

PARISHT WARD BOUNDARIES 

SCALC IN MILES 

     



PLAN : PROPOSAL B DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND KEGISTERED VOTERS DATE i November 1981 PILES STATE SENATE 
PAGE 1 

TOTAL WHITE BLACK AM, INDIAN ASTAN/PI OTHER SPANISH ORIG. DISTRICT TOT VOTERS WHITE VOTERS BLACK VOTERS 

1 526,666 419,996 94,106 17.9% 1,879 0.4% 6,909 1.3% 3,776 0.7% 220,036 191,192 28,658 13.0% 

525,138 230,855 283,506 54.0% 490 6,001 ‘1.1% 4,286 229,007 129,408 99,579 43.5% 

525,581 404,952 111,834 21.3% 4,920 2,032 0.4% 1,843 249,598 202,585 ; 46,954 18.8% 

525,067 352,076 165,918 31.6% 1,704 2,322 0.4% 2,987 219,307 170,223 48,984 22.3% 

527,656 360,705 163,860 31,1% 658 1,019 1,414 249,768 188,260 > ; 61,108 24,5% 

525,074 399,576 119,493 22,0% 7181 2,714 2,510 263,773 217,589 2.51 46,184 17.5% 

523,847 415,313 104,676 20.0% 820 1,518 1,520 270,601 225,240 45,343 16.8% 

524,943 327,710 4 193,810 36.9% 812 1,256 1,295 253,836 176,851 ! 76,983 30,3% 

 



  

DISTRICT VARIANCE REPORT 

PLAN: PROPOSAL B DATE: Hovember 4, 1981 

FILE: STATE SENATE PAGE: |} 
IDEAL DISTRICT POPULATION 525,497 

DIST. NUMBER TOTAL POP, % DIST. VARIANCE POP, DIFFERENCE 
Ov Bt On We ES TE Bn en SE BE Re wh EO ae Ge ee ee 

526,666 1,170 
525,138 359 
525,581 85 
525,067 430 
527,656 2,160 
525,074 423 
523,847 : 1,650 
524,943 554 D

L
O
 

D
W
N
 

STATE AVERAGE VARIANCE 0,16% 

STATE. OVERALL POPULATION VARIANCE 0,72% 
EE En EP EE wT Ee EE a SE en TW ES SE GS GP SD Se GR RE Ge SU Se GS NE EE EP GS Ge SU GE RG SE GR Ge SU GE GP GE UN SN BE SE GU We EE GE SY SE GP NE SD SB SF Se BO Be SD Gn ME 6 G0 BS 08 oe 

IDEAL DIST, POP. 

% DIST, VARIANCE 

% AVERAGE VARIANCE 

% OVERALL POP VAR, 

(*x¥ NOT 

STATE POP, / NUMBER OF DISTRICTS 

(bIST. POP, = IDEAL DIST, POP,) / IDEAL DIST, POP, 
(SUM OF DIST. VARIANCES) / NUMBER OF DISTRICTS 

(HIGHEST PUP, - LOWEST DIST, POP,)/1DEAL DIST, POP, 

¢  ‘/° CHARACTER MEANS ‘DIVIDED BY?) E



PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGHED TO DISTRICT 1 November 4, 1981 
FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 526,666 PAGE: “| 

JEFFERSON PARISH 

WARD 1 90000 SSO OOONOSOESPNOSIOIPOTERTIOEDPDS 32,111 

WARD 2 000000 RPRONOIRNPOLOLEOLIOSSTPOEDS 16,599 

WARD 3 evo eco ccssvevsscenrn 27,053 

WARD 4 CEL RCI BEB BE BEBE BE BE BEBE BN BR BE NN 73,844 

WARD 5 

WARD 6 

WARD 7) 

PRECINCT ees eveeescveccscsssen 644 

PRECINCT ee oevecscsescccnsecavnse 441 

PRECINCT eeeccsssccccssccacss 1,361 
PRECINCT eecssscssscsssscscncass 1,609 
PRECINCT escssccscescesssceses 1,006 

PRECINCT ee ee secs evevsrscvsece 565 

PRECINCT secececscsccssscsscane 992 

PRECINCT Gecescpscccessenceses 624 

PRECINCT $000 esccsccs certs 1,232 

PRECINCT eG eevee escossenseoc 659 

PRECINCT cecscccscsseccnssces 199 
PRECINCT @0 ev e0OesesssseesRRe 1,315 

PRECINCT ee es ences ocrrscesecs 531 

PRECINCT eee ccscsvessssvvonne 920 

PRECINCT ®0 e000 PLPOPPOIOGOLIITRPOOOODN 1,113 

8 

PRECINCT SOO secon OSLPOIOIETGEL 1,054 

PRECINCT See ROOST IBNOSESIBLORSIOSERNTTDN $2213 

PRECINCT Pees eves eccecsvsvere 1,246 

PRECINCT fe ecvecveccesesosvoey 1,750 

PRECINCT ceccecccccsccencsecse 622 

PRECINCT escscsccesccsnesnvse 817 

PRECINCT ceecccssscecssscssene 815 
PRECINCT es ev ees cccsvsovevace 978 

PRECINCT Peo evecrsvevsveeren 1,039 

PRECINCT ee epoececssvecscsvroa 999 

PRECINCT Oe 00oe0veevesOPeLOL 1,391 

PRECINCT : tecscscsscssenccscsnsne 919 

PRECINCT eccscsssescssscsssse 2,488 

PRECINCT : eeeccscsnsesvecsscreses 1,099 

PRECINCT G0 OP severe sePsOReN 1,134 

PRECINCT LC BC IE BE BEE BE BEB BE I BE BEB BN 1,270 

PRECINCT ceccsscccssesssccsscses 633 

PRECINCT ceecescccssesccnsess 1,040 
PRECINCT sesessessssscsnssses 2,106 
PRECINCT eevescecscsscscscees J,869 
PRECINCT es evescsecrsvsecs00 ee 1,191 

eee peeve ecsssevrece 23,890 

e000 oe osceecrsesoseveoe 4,480 

 



PLANIPROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT | November 4, 1981 

FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 526,666 PAGE 2 

JEFFERSON PARISH CONTINUED= 

PRECINCT J ssessssssvcsscsscesess 

PRECINCT 32 cesesecsscsssssccsessesn 

PRECINCT 33 PRPEPEPSPEPS I ECC ICRC SE BI Ad 

PRECINCT 34 eeescsecssssssssscscse 

PRECINCT 35 eecesgesevossvecoencer
 

PRECINCT 36 cess csscssssusveccvcce 

PRECINCT 37 seesessssssasanssses 

PRECINCT 38 eseoesscsscssscvecnse 

PRECINCT 39 cecsscenssrssasssnses 

PRECINCT 40 cesses csacsscscssancene 

PRECINCT 41 es sso eeceecossess ne 

PRECINCT 42 cs esses sssseenecsses 

PRECINCT 43 ecesasssssccsacccese 

PRECINCT 44 cesecsscsssevscosese 

PRECINCT 45° PRPEPEPSPSPSE IE ICE JC IC RCI AL BE A 

PRECINCT 46 cecssscscsscssccesse 

PRECINCT 41 cceevsecsssesesssscce 

PRECINCT 48 cecescsssescscsvesnscon 

PRECINCT 49 eessscsssssssseccscvoe 

PRECINCT 50 evescssssssssscscseese 

WARD 9 

PRECINCT 1 esos scececnscssncsoe 

PRECINCT 1K esos ecsecsecsev ever 

PRECINCT 2 eee cesecsscecs sess 

PRECINCT 2A esevesssssscsssccccee 

PRECINCT 2K eesecsesssssscscncecse 

PRECINCT 3 esos es sss sess evssrce 

PRECINCT 3A esesesvseosssvssseses
 

PRECINCT 3B esessssscssesscesacoes 

PRECINCT 3C cesses savcssscussnsss 

PRECINCT 3D cececssssssscesnvece 

PRECINCT k J 15 cvssssnsesssssecvevs 

PRECINCT IF ceesesscsessscccsscss 

PRECINCT 3G eso 0c essessss0cs Ol 

PRECINCT 3H esescssssssvescnsense 

PRECINCT 31 Tasers sessiessecesnn 

PRECINCT 3K cecsscsssevsessscccsse 

PRECINCT 4K cesses csscsvscsveseee 

PRECINCT 5K JE EEE I RR 

PRECINCT 6K RR 

PRECINCT TK ececssscssecscsscvescone 

PRECINCT BK eeseccssssvssesevesne 

PRECINCT 9K ceesessssssssscvacese 

PRECINCT 10A esessesscssssscsccces 

PRECINCT 108 escesssssssssessecss  



PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 1 Hovember 4, 1981 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 526,666 PAGE 3 

GSW wh Ge ee PR EN 0 OR OF GE OR SS 
Pe leche dead 

JEFFERSON PARISH CONTINUED= 

PRECINCT 10C EEE EE ER RCRA A 2,511 

PRECINCT 10D EEE EEC RR IAB ACA 2,949 

PRECINCT 10E ececeesvessescreneve 
2:113 

PRECINCT 10F PEE EE EEE RCRA A 2,261 

PRECINCT 10G PEE EE EEE ACAI A 1,485 

PRECINCT 10H @eevepsescssvecssnce 1,507 

PRECINCT - 10K areesevennsssestases. 11456 

PRECINCT esessssssccsccscscves 904 

PRECINCT EE EF EE RRR 609 

PRECINCT EERE IE A A 2,618 

PRECINCT EEE EEE IRIE ACEC 1,751 

PRECINCT EEE EE ECR ER A 2,176 

PRECINCT : es esses csvsssscere 3,275 

PRECINCT FTE E EE RR RR BC 1,110 

PRECINCT ececcsescssvecsnscaccan 1,274 

PRECINCT Cevaseurssevaasnsves 2,031 

PRECINCT PETER EERIE CR NI BL 1,412 

PRECINCT ee taensseseenaneee 24087 

PRECINCT Cavedssedinsovssnres 37412 

PRECINCT METER EEC RRC IR AAI A 1,517 

10 
PRECINCT eee seessesscssesenee 

1,174 

PRECINCT eceesesecsnssesssecsee 
1,581 

PRECINCT eeee0 eos scsvsaces one 1,760 

PRECINCT 
ee eeepesesecsccssce

 1,706 

PRECINCT 
Parra a I CBC RC RC BE BEE IE BL 2.131 

PRECINCT PERE EE ECR I I RE BI A 1,370 

PRECINCT . PEE EEE ER ICRI II AC 2,488 

PRECINCT EEE EEE RCRA EN Ad 2,204 

PRECINCT eve eoecpssecsensecs sere 2,586 

PRECINCT IEEE EEE RI A Ad 2,416 

PRECINCT IEEE EEE RC BCR Rd 1,063 

PRECINCT EEE EEE ICRI IIA BL I 2,938 

PRECINCT cats ssmnisennnneeny 24426 

PRECINCT eeecsssssccsscssceaccncs 1,7]1 

PRECINCT YEE EEE IEEE A Ad 1,499 

PRECINCT eec 00sec sevsesvse 2,016 

PRECINCT eecesecsvssscsccsenee 3,1} 

PRECINCT eee vcecensosensevesee 914 

PRECINCT EEE EEE EEE Aad 2,132 

PRECINCT esessranssesseresyne 1,490 

WARD 11 PEE EE EEE ERR NICER A 1,993 

JEFFERSON PARISH TOTAL IS 377,400  



Movember 
UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 

PAGE 
DISTRICT TOTALS PLAN :PROPOSAL B 

FILE:STATE SENATE 

ORLEANS PARISH 

WARD AS esecceecs
ssccsssss

se 

ORLEANS PARISH TOTAL IS 

59,120 

26,049 
PLAQUEMIN

ES PARISH 
PPP TTE TERE RAR EAS dd 

ST BERNARD PARISH EE RETR 64,097 

4, 

 



PLAN:PROPOSAL BR UNITS ASSIGHED TO DISTRICT 2 November 4, 1981 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL? 525,138 PAGE 1 

BS ion herbaria add bok otk hi ston ads rales io Sadat arias sdubatort 

JEFFERSON PARISH 

WARD 7 
PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

WARD 8 
PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 
PRECINCT 

PRECINCY 

PRECINCT 
PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

WARD 10 
PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT 

PRECINCT cesssscsscsescnsanvoe 

PRECINCT 10 PETER EEE REI REI 

PRECINCT 11 MEE EEE EEE EN NCEE EI 4 

PRECINCT 12 EEE EREE EEE EEE BEE Ed 

JEFFERSON PARISH TOTAL IS 

EEE EEE IEEE CR 

W
N
)
 

EEE EEE IEA AE EE 

TREE EEE IIRC BA I I 

Sees nceasvvesee meee 

EEE EEE III ECR I ACEI 

TEER E EI IA BI BCR 

N
N
N
 

D
W
N
 

~N
 

"EEE EEE I ECA EI 

ee eveencsevevcstssnce 

ee esc ecenreseenessnse 

O
O
D
 
W
N
 

=
 

ORLEANS PARISH 
WARD 
WARD 

WARD 

WARD 
WARD 

WARD 
WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

@e® eos see ecce0cscOn oe 6,852 

ee es ocecceessecsosoor 11,961 

e000 ecsscecoeesss er 18,564 

ev eevee eseOROPEOO SON 25,553 

eve ceeveceps esses 18,149 

ee ees 000s eee OBLON 9,926 

eves e9eeOOOCEROOSISOSTIS 63,911 

eecescqeseocvsvs ee 33,070 

RCE Meh BL 

e060 ecee ees POSS SORPOOS 18,014 C
V
O
 

N
d
 
W
N
 

—
  



  

PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 8 November 4, 1981 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL? 524,943 PAGE 2 

- n= Gm ee Cv ES ER Ge WD WS SDE ON ED EW GS ED SS ES ee GS ES Sv GR SS WS WE EP Se ERE EE We Ge GN GE Ey A SP EP SS ER WP WR G0 WR M0 00 Wn 0 

IBERVILLE PARISH 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD 

WARD PEE RE ICICI BC RC BE AL BL 

IBFRVILLE PARISH TOTAL IS 

e®eeeev OOOO PIOOSIPOEOS OOS 

eve eoseeeOsOsOONOOLRS 

O
O
O
 

O
N
D
 
W
N
 

=
 

POINTE COUPEE PARISH casesssessacsnsesses 24,045 

RAPIDES PARISH 

WARD eves ocesesORRPOROLOOOTS 54,972 

WARD s000eROPPOOOOOINOOIOIOS TOTS 3,970 

WARD e900 0000 OOPIOOIOIORNSISTPOTOTS 4,046 

WARD eee ce enescessseenovee 5,287 

WARD PER EERE RII II A 3,463 

WARD MERE EERE RII RI AR A 1,434 

WARD e000 0000 OO OGLOOEOPSSTPSTOTDS 5,000 

WARD POCO RCI IC BC BE RCE BE J BE I A 13,154 

WARD e800 eo OOO QOOPSOSOEPLEOSTOTS 16,114 

RAPIDES PARISH TOTAL IS 107,440 

ST LANDRY PARISH eiaasessecnmnraesses 84,128 

WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH cececcccvccscccecccnne 19,086 

W FELICIAHNA PARISH TEER EE EIEN EI BN EE I EJ 12,186 

 



  

PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 8 November 4, 1981 
FILEISTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 524,943 PAGE 1 

ALLEN PARISH 

WARD 1 S000 0c ecPORLOOEOIOIOLOEOLE 2,914 

WARD 5 @eePeecesveocesovoone 10,367 

ALLEN PARISH TOTAL IS 

AVOYELLES PARISH : eo oevvseeescscssscovnvos 41,393 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 

WARD 1 

PRECINCT 20 Sees svseseccsscssesron 

PRECINCT 21 e000 seve ncensscseer 

PRECINCT 22 esevecccsccescsevacny 
PRECINCT 23 eevee sescessrnencne 

PRECINCT 24 tecsesvecscscsnsossas 
PRECINCT 25 @ecsesecesssssecnvoee 

PRECINCT 26 e000 eevsesvcsescevon 

PRECINCT 28 Seecseersevreccsscsevee 

PRECINCT 31 ee ceovecsoseccrvensee 

PRECINCT 50 @0 ccs ecessssccsennce 

PRECINCT 58 tov eecseseseessesece 

PRECINCT 62 Sec cvoevsevesecvssvnnye 

PRECINCT 73 @e es evcsescecscenesnoes 

PRECINCT 84 Se scsnvcerssonresee 

PRECINCT 85 C00 ccscensesvsPrLNse 

PRECINCT 86 @0 0c eves erecssssesse 

PRECINCT 91 cececacvecscsscnscnse 

PRECINCT 92 S000 0s eversenorseee 

PRECINCT 93 eececsccsccrsscecncese 
WARD 2 @0 0000000 OOess LOY 72,099 

WARD 3 

PRECINCT 1 oer eveccescevevenese 

PRECINCT 8 ®ve 0cevvsrscsesense 

PRECINCT 9 tees cecvsscvocsevense 
PRECINCT 14 eevsecssecscccccsccssssee 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH TOTAL IS 138,867 

E FELICIANA PARISH eevcccscccssncccsscse 19,015 

EVANGELINE PARISH ©0090 00 esse eIONILTLISODS 33,343  



  
  

PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TU DISTRICT 17 November 4, 1981 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 523,847 PAGE 2 

- eh EE ED SS Gp SE GR EP GB GR GD EP GR GD UR 4B ED WS 0 00 =. ee WS = GE GP US GP WR GY SY WS EE We eu Wa ne ww ww OE ee 

VERMILION PARISH TEER EEE II EE AA BNE EN 48,458 

 



  

PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 7 November 4, 1981 
FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 523,847 PAGE 1 

ACADIA PARISH S00 ccoecesssrsvosveras 56,427 

ALLEN PARISH 

WARD 2 e000 cscscsroevceencae 5,242 

WARD 3 ® 0 00 00e0PeRGSRLRNIRPOOE 1,292 

WARD 4 LEC BB BEBE BE BB NE BE BN BN BIC NN) 1,515 

ALLEN PARISH TOTAL IS 

BEAUREGARD PARISH 

WARD 1 8 ® 0000 OGOONINOSOLIOIOEPNOIEQOLTOINPONTODS 

WARD 

WARD 
Z2 
4 

WARD 5 eo eco vevecsevocvvere 

6 

7 

@® 000000 eoeesssssere 

@®Cecco0eeessvsseve 

WARD 
WARD 

WARD 8 e000 0000 cn9revessecre 

BEAUREGARD PARISH TOTAL IS 

CCRC BCCI IE BE BB CI BO BI I A) 

CALCASIEU PARISH sescscscccrssaccesss167,048 

CAMERON PARISH ececcscecssccssessse 9,336 

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH seeeeeesvsnencasvsns 32,168 

LAFAYETTE PARISH esecscsccevcncsseeselb0,017 

ST MARTIN PARISH 

WARD 1 

PRECINCT Geese veccsonccsoenvovoe 

PRECINCT So ecescencccsevsescses 

PRECINCT Cees cevscascsccnsanse 
PRECINCT * Seo ncevesrssevnsecnce 

PRECINCT cecececrssvecscsvocsnnse 
WARD 2 ev 00000 eescccssrave 4,561 

WARD 3 00 veces csccvccrssne 5,030 

WARD 4 © 0 S00 0G GSOPOIONIOEPLNOIEOEOTSES 13,414 

WARD 5 ec sc0c0eseseresvcenve 8,995 

ST MARTIN PARISH TOTAL IS 39,066  



PLANSPROPUOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 6 November 4, 1981 

FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 525,074 PAGE 3 

A SAE 
MS RRR en SR Ll ek ak cat ds Sadak al 

LIVINGSTON PARISH CONTINUED= 

WARD 2 Par EE EE ERNIE A 24,488 

WARD 3 

PRECINCT 
60008 assNsEINEI

RISEY 

PRECINCT 
eeesasssese

sesIVILOIII
TS 

PRECINCT 
es ves oss esas IesNYSEl 

WARD 4 

PRECINCT 
esescssecs

cccsscspev
es 

PRECINCT 
ev eevee eS ev eevee se . 

PKECINCT 
PRETTY ER tds dn BA 

PRECINCT 
EY TEE EE EE ERE RRA 

PRECINCT 
esescssess

sssssesesc
s 

LIVINGSTON RISH TOTAL IS 

ST HELENA PARISH 
eessseensss

escssssesse
 

ST TAMMANY PARISH 
Fl esemtvsesn

snnces110,
554 

TANGIPAHOA
 PARISH 

ees sssesscssssS
RRTRISTSTS 

80,698 

WASHINGTON PARISH " eeseesessescececsece 44,207 

 



PLAN:PROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 6 November 4, 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 525,074 PAGE 2 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH CONTINUED= 

PRECINCT 57 EEE EEE I I 

PRECINCT 59 PEE EEE ER RI A A 

PRECINCT 60 PEE EE EE RRA 

PRECINCT 61 FEE EN NA CEC CBE BE BB J 

PRECINCT 63 ees eevvsoeacecevvacse 

PRECINCT 64 EEE EEE RN IN Ad 

PRECINCT 65 PapaPararrar 3 3 CBC ECR IE BUI J BL 

PRECINCT 66 FEE CN EA J CECI A BB J 

PRECINCT 
PY I IE BC BE I eos 000 en 

PRECINCT 
ees essen PEC IC BI 

PRECINCT esesecsscsacsssccceves 

PRECINCT 
EEE EE EE ICRI BI Bd 

PRECINCT 
PPT EEE EEE II IE I 

PRECINCT Para ER ICI IC LN 

PRECINCT 
MEE EEE IARI 

PRECINCT 
es cvececss vece

s 

PRECINCT 
PETER EEC IRC IC 

PRECINCT ese soevoeesesessvesrs 

PRECINCT 
es eseescencscepo

voer ee 

PRECINCT 
ee ecesscsescse

veses 

PRECINCT 
es evs eesscoescsvs

s ey 

PRECINCT 
esses eeeccsses sve

 

PRECINCT 
EEE EEE RC RCN Ad 

PRECINCT PEE EEE EER CCR A 

PRECINCT 
es eecevsvsesvessveec

 ss 

PRECINCT 
eves escevecosepOes 

el 

PRECINCT 
FEE EEE EE EJ CECE EB J 

PRECINCT 
es es veces eessORERPOOSTCS 

WARD 3 

PRECINCT 
PEPPER BCR BE BE I 

PRECINCT 
PUPP I 3 IC ICI BEE BBE IE J A 4 

PRECINCT 
ee es ecsccce sees

 

PRECINCT escesessssasessssesse 

PRECINCT cscesscssscscssccvoncae 

PRECINCT eseescsescsvsecsvecsnsves 

PRECINCT 
ev eesoevsecasev

essnte 

PRECINCT 
PEE EEE EEE EAE EL Ad 

PRECINCT eecsccsssessssacsssse 

FAST BATON ROUGE PARISH TUTAL IS 227,297 

LIVINGSTON PARISH 

WARD 1 eeee0c0009pGOOOC
OLSCSD 14,693  



PLAN:PROPOSAL R UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 6 November 4, 1981 

FILESSTATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTAL: 525,074 PAGE 1 

Ppp TY etd athat ded ad ated ad adeadied pspppspepepepupepeerse TE TT LL LL Ld deded odd odode dadedababadabed 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 

WARD 1 

PRECINCT EEE ER RR Ad 1,403 

PRECINCT PEE EEE RRR AA 3,973 

PRECINCT PEE EEE RI Bd 1,585 

PRECINCT EEE EE EN ICC RAR A ad 808 

PRECINCT EEE EEE I A BL Jd 2,061 

PRECINCT ee eceeecsnossecscses ep 3,206 

PRECINCT eves vs eceecosvesOeseboe 1,066 

PKECINCT esscccavessssvovonce
 1,795 

PRECINCT PEE EEE IR EI A I 1,359 

PRECINCT EEE EEE IRN I 3,042 

PRECINCT esses ecescesenserB Ce 2,534 

PRECINCT eevee ecses eevee 3,353 

PRECINCT EERE IEA IB A 2,113 

PRECINCT EEE EEE I RC AA BL 1,700 

PRECINCT eves seecesrecceseP Oe 1,256 

PRECINCT PEPE II I SCR SCRE BC BC BBE 2,073 

PRECINC'L y MEET EEE EEE IN 2,306 

PRECINCT “ eee ceceacvsosessenspeRol 1,991 

PRECINCT ec evseecsncsesenecper oe 2,020 

PRECINCT MEE EEE RRA A 1,356 

PRECINCT eeevesccscsesrRLEee
 921 

PRECINCT esgsvssvsetisacnavens 14698 

PKECINCT TERE EE ICICI A AB 1,032 

PRECINCT eseveccsvecscevecsenoe
 8,439 

PRECINCT csetsesusrtscevusrnn 29949 

PRECINCT i PREPS I I I RC CRC BE BEBE BI BL 2,25) 

PRECINCT es ee esse ees tess 940 

PRECINCT eveveeseeesssece eee 1,403 

PRECINCT eeceesscsscssenene os 1,680 

PRECINCT MEE EEE I CR BB 1,278 

PRECINCT PEE EEE ICRC BCA A 1,300 

PRECINCT PEE EE ECE CR AE 5,114 

PRECINCT eo veces vecessese ee 2,259 

PRECINCT ceessanscesesnensnee 10,940 

PRECINCT css evsscuevessnsrene 14037 

PRECINCT esses ccsccsvcecscccses 1.512 

PRECINCT 
ev ees secs es eOVENON SE 2,647 

PRECINCT > FEE EEE EE IN Ad 2.563 

PRECINCT eeescssccsscsscsscesnoes 1,939 

PRECINCT sda ersessatinsenees 34592 

PRECINCT es oeveccscecsosevOscR
 3,359 

PRECINCT > esevepsessenenssnse oe 2,786 

PRECINCT 
PETTERS RCN AI 1,284  



PLAN :PROPOSAL RB UNITS ASSIGHED 70 DISTRICT 5 November 4, 1981 

DISTRICT TOTALS 527,656 PAGE 2 

FILE:STATE SENATE HOI Su SERRE 
3 deh dhsgdech hod algun 

 



PLANSPROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGHED TO DISTRICT 5 November 

FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 527,656 PAGE 

RIENVILLE PARISH SE Re a 

CALDWELL PARISH Ce rstnas sesame 

CATAHOULA PARISH dessa shn ans nie 

CONCORDIA PARISH ie curses svsinsuns 

FE CARROLL PARISH Nes ese ivernesaee 

FRANKLIN PARISH Ry 

GRANT PARISH al eiSatennran ans 

JACKSON PARISH Jdinaevarsesveanee 

LA SALLE PARISH ML Pg PPL 1 

LINCOLN PARISH Jesnnsunuse see snes 

MADISON PARISH  csemesississresssive 

MOREHOUSE PARISH LS ese na sresus 

NATCHITOCHES PARISH is a snenvias vs ednee 

OUACHITA PARISH Ee chemin #139, 2) 

RAPIDES PRRISH 
WARD 10 Lessssssasssssesvae

ne 20,117 

WARD 
11 ss deg sssen

dcasssee
sy 1,125 

RAPIDES PARISH TOTAL IS : 

RICHLAND PARISH 
cc ss veseesvassnsan

ssy 

TENSAS PARISH 
sdescnsvnesssene

sess 

UNION PARISH 
eases ssesssvas

ses ius 

W CARROLL
 PARISH 

cine vesaese
esndsns

seey 

WINN PARISH 
cose vssusesnéed

ssses 

1981 

[hada 

 



PLAN s PROPOSAL R UNITS ASSIGHED TO DISTRICT 4 November 

FILE:STATE 
SENATE 

D1STRICT TOTALS 
525,067 

PAGE 

T
C
 

i 
SE
R 

BEAUREGARD 
PARISH 

WARD 
3 B
EE
 LE Det 

16,47
4 

BEAUREGARD 
PARISH TUTAL 15 

BOSSIER PARISH 

CADDO PARISH 

CLAIBORNE PARISH 

DE SOTO PARISH 

RED RIVER PARISH 

SABINE PARISH 
iseasssnnssis

snsveeees 

VERNON PARISH 

WEBSTER PARISH 

 



PLAN:PKUOPUSAL R UNITS ASSIGNED TO DYSTRICT 3 

FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 525,581 

nn 0 Y #  N  E'0 SY 0 8 Hp 0 

LIVINGSTON 
PARISH CONTINUED= 

PRECINCT 5«2 Nbesesesesre
nsssse se 431 

PRECINCT 10-1 ctesesssnssesan
essvey 974 

LIVINGSTON PARISH TOTAL IS 

ST CHARLES PARISH cesecosssssstssesen
e 37,259 

ST JAMES PARISH Pe Ln 21,495 

ST JOHN THE BAPT PARISH cececcocccsccnscccocs
e 31,924 

ST MARTIN PARISH 

WARD 1 
PRECINCT 

5 sO IIASS86908980
0 1,148 

ST MARTIN PARISH TOTAL IS 

ST MARY PARISH RE
 kd 64,395 

TERREBONNE PARISH SE TT EN LR RR 94,393 

November 

PAGE 

1,148 

 



UNITS ASSIGHED TO DISTRICT 3 November 

FILE$STATE SE DISTRICT TOTAL: 525,581 py 

ASCENSION PARISH cass essiesssisacsnee 

ASSUMPTION
 PARISH 

cesses ssessessn
eay 

IBERIA PARISH 
sere esssessvesssae

es 

JEFFERSON PARISH 

WARD 9 

PRECINCT 
cess sssaINEes E8880 4,146 

PRECINCT 
Cesessess eI Ese se YE 1,785 

PRECINCT 
ces essences cntngssssy 

2,153 

PRECINCT 
sescseses

vecvesens
sy 4,453 

PRECINCT 
ese sae eas end esas 

4,296 

PRECINCT 
ce sris assesses 

sssaesy 1,593 

PRECINCT 
Covsasnsese

senssesnss 
2.921% 

PRECINCT 
esses entee esas ese 2,233 

PRECINCT 
y caves Us sseR RESEND SNE 2,994 

PRECINCT 
cso vsssesen

esanesens 2,554 

PRECINCT 
riers te ate eR N Eee ey 2,910 

WARD 10 

PRECINCT 
ses essisssssess

sedsne 2,671 

PRECINCT 
. sess aesseIe

seseesnss 
2,670 

PRECINCT 
es sens esnendssasens 

1,388 

PRECINCT 
as esssesse

svessasse 
1,230 

PRECINCT 
cos ussevess

vssee eee 812 

PRECINCT 
ees sescesad

nasunsans 
1,552 

PRECINCT 
Tess vesesse

Rseseases 
2,759 

PRECINCT 
csssassss

nsess selene 1,149 

PRECINCT 
ce ssvnetsss

snsnvasey 
1,860 

PRECINCT 
csssseseseaasscens

 ess 1,664 

PRECINCT 
Seesssesass

sestesves 
1,017 

JEFFERSON PARISH TOTAL IS 

LAFOURCHE PARISH seeceessescevenacc
ssen 82,483 

LIVINGSTON PARISH 

WARD 3 
PRECINCT 3-1 dasvesseseessasen

ssy 2,139 

PRECINCT 3=2 Castes racsnewsee
sse 700 

WARD 4 

PRECINCT 5=1 Cs esas ene vases senyn 1,664 

PRECINCT 5=3 ried s sss essere eene 250  



PLLANSPROPOSAL B UNITS ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 2 : November 

FILE:STATE SENATE DISTRICT TOTALS 525,138 PAGE 2 

I A ad och hast dndetatind adic on 5 SR 8 OW 4 EM a 0 0 41 2 

ORLEANS PARISH CONTINUED-= 

WARD pararerer XE RE CIC NCR BR hd 

WARD cess esssEsNNA
NssTeN 

WARD PER EEL LR EE 

WARD set90scessssss
seReTIS 

WARD esssesscscscsssss
secoe 

WARD esosssesesestss
ssesy 

ORLEANS PARISH TOTAL 15 
498,362 

 



APPENDIX 4 

Henderson Plan 

 



HENDERSON cs pon FLAN 

1 0 Parish Frac %  TL1lFawr RikPoe Blk % Tt1lRed RBlkReg RllkZ 

346 Orleans &852, DERE. 77.15 2206, 1453. 45.87 

346 Orleans 11241, 102172. 91,27 2803, 3241. O%,.22 

34 Orleans P2246, B04, 59.50 44380, 2043, 446.03 

246 Orleans 43271. 43482. &7.97 JOH, 18233. 52.40 

34 Orleans 33070. 15565, 47:07 15599, Nis®, 33.14 

346 Orleans 154987. F4TR3e. 50,99 ANZ22.. BFZ775,. B5.42 

246 Orleans 18014, 13748, 74.32 ik 3484, 42.43 
346 Orleans 23797. 1R173. 2&4. 37 2083. BP47. 465.49 

36 Orleans 23442, 157646. 46.69 2000, AOL. 60.37 

36 Orleans 17644. BR24. 48.40 f/I75. 3413, 40,7 

346 Orleans 20294, 4525, 15.4% 14824. 1424, 

246 Orleans BP120, 20184.  A2.460 21402. A558, 

26 Orlezns 114677. 5147. 44,08 S094, 1715. 

14 Orleans 13325. 428, 32.30 218, B53 

15 Orleans ] 1634, 602, 346.84 1058. 232. 

16 Orleans 4609, R20. HI.5% 213. 125. 

17 Orleans 11922, B77. 4B. 314. 114. 

18 Orleans 873%, 770. 838.20 Zi. R27 

12 Orleans = 4634, 245, 38.44 273. 39. 

20 Orleans { 2481. 2113. 78.8% 281. 249, 

21 Orleans P52, 384, 40,34 X57. 29, 
22 Orleans 1154, 261. 22462 32h, 24, 
23 Orleans : 2 406, 1723. 28.59% 256, 30. 

24 Orleans : 737. 74. 10.01 348, 27: 

2% Drleans 3 826. P46. 11.42 SE 3b. 

26 Orleans GI 838. 122. 22.93 2468. 74, 

27 Orleans : 46468. 25: 14.22 303. Lés 

32 Orleans 2 2132, B37 ad 2h. 50 2146. 594, 

33 Orleans 1581. 1534, 927.03 nig; S04 

34 Orleans 1548. 1334. 86.18 Bal. 438, 

35 Orleans ; 803. X04, 37.84 24%, 725, 20.582 

346 Orleans 250. 84, 2.88 Rr 1%, 4.03 

62 Orleans . 211. i HA 0 8 GA Q. 0.00 
463 Orleans i : 924, 8. 10.461 RA 67. hh 
64 Orleans ! 295, b7 65.73 S76. 2. 3.12 

65 Orleans 2 512, 504, 98.44 181. 174. 24.13% 
446 Orleans 5 1549, 1548, 99.94 pi A 243. 922.37 
67 Orleans re 1923. 1274. 99.05% 726. F172, oR. 74h 
48 Orleans 1700, 14673. 98.41 701. a4. 272.57 
49 Orleans 1501. 1400, 02:27 als A474 , 1.34 
70 Orleans 1170. 108%. 932.08 344, 307. 82.24 

71 Orleans 240, 775: 82.45 R72 27%. S50 

Orleans 8463, 4746. SH. 14 242, 140. 4 

73 Orleans 878. 178. 20.27 323: 41. 0:43 

74 Orleans : 742, 12. 1.42 504, 1. 0,20 

Orleans : 785. 192, 24,44 401, 73. 1870 

Orleans : 730, 428, SB,4632 307. 127. 41.37 

406 Orleans 3 1673. 14492, 87.81 ob 430, 27.52 

Orleans i 730. 432. 52.18 326. 174, 53.37 

Orleans 1424, 1024... 71.70 S28. R10, 50.71 

Orleans 2994, 2576 99.31 Z253. ol. P92.723 

Orleans 1298. 682: H2-04 414, 25%. al 24 
Orleans 1173. 747 463.48 481. 20%. 53.232 

Orleans ] 1511. 134%. 29.01] 697. 602. 27 

Orleans 7-1 1084, 507. Aba 489, 158. 32:31 

Orleans 14657, 1617: 95.29 557 609, 2.49 

Orleans 1342. 281... 20.84 425, 250, oa,80 

Orleans BA24- 2982. 25.319 1198, 1137.. 25:21 

Orleans 2176, 1514. 49.59 A550, BO, 77.38 

Orleans 1204, 225: 74.88 554, 387. L£F.84 

* 
= 

. 
oe 

+3
 

LF
 

- 

i 
H 

a
a
a
a
d
g
a
a
 

{ 
i 

a
 

 



41% Urleans 7-16 

Forul for: 525499, 

Forglations 307514. 

Registration? 214894. 

Black Redistration? 10%4AT70, 49,17 7 

Variance: 0.00 

 



St. Rermnard 

Flaouemines 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 
Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 
Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

a 1 A 

P1000 

2-100 

4K 

IK 

2K 

1K 
118 

AK 

7K 

Henderson 

THlPne 

64097. 

26049, 

32111, 

16599, 

220053, 
73844, 

23890, 

44830, 
1annG, 

72079, 

7222h, 

1992. 

1019, 

2044, 

504, 

20831. 

3238, 

1837, 

1255, 

6564, 
14644, 

14672. 

2548, 

2831, 

10625, 

204, 

409, 

1751; 

2174, 

111%, 

27% 

2511, 

2949, 

2123. 

1862. 

657. 

18246, 

2241. 
1259, 

15059, 

2590, 

1R72, 

1741. 

22467, 

148%, 

1507, 

214. 

471 

113. 

783. 

G86, 

402, 

840, 

1049, 

1699, 
845, 

790. 

1389, 

BllkFos 

1798, 
782%. 

172389, 
103467. 

333, 
2315. 
14618. 

congressional 

Blk X% 

> 
- 

D
O
D
O
 

20.45 
7-21 
2214 

0,2] 

1.41 
1.22 
0,34 

1.04 
2.37 
1.94 
4,42 

OJ I. 

0.00 

0.17 
Z.57 

18.72 
16.45 
4,02 

1.27 
0 * 34 

TEL Fees 

11934. 

12027. 

A124. 

8440. 

246876 Fon] 

4384, 

2001. 
6908. 

34434, 

34399, 

L441, 

431 
1394 
334, 

123%, 

714. 
P12, 
419, 

wlan 

BllRes BRLEZ 

oY
 J 

w
w
 

1
3
 

80
 

P
J
}
 

« 
£8
 

~J
 

[x
 

ps
 

Re
 

9%
 

 



2 EE 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 4-11 1206. 

Orleans oD 110. 

Orleans 13 388. 

Orleans ef B83. 

Orleans y, 4 457 

Orleans 146 A132. 

Orleans a I 783. 

Orleans 1é 621, 

Orleans LA 980. 

Orleans 1 221, 

Orleans 17 230, 

Orleans = 851. 

Orleans 186 729, 

Orleans as 804. 

Drleans 4-2 L234, 

Orleans 200A AT 

Drleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 

Orleans 
D
C
 
O
R
R
 

O
O
 
C
O
C
R
 
M
g
 

Lo
 

aK 

i179 4 25K 

Forglation: maEgnG, 

Black Forulation? 

Redgistration? 23728023. 

Rlack Redistration? 

Variance?! 

 



Heride Py CTO 

gE  ThlFoes BillkPos Bik ¥ 

21924. 12175. 

50068. 

21495, 

wr 

St. Charles 

afourche 

Terrebons 

Et. Maru 447 18514, 

Iheria han 174640, 

Jefferson Z-00 14546, 1032. 

Jefferson { 3: 

Jefferson 

SS
LE

NE
LY

 
3
 

§ 
i
 

i 

Jefferson 

Jdafferaon 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

Jefferson 

def fercson i
d
 

Jafferaso Peal 2221 

Jefferson : HI si 

< 2904, 

J 
Oe
 

Lf
 

EL
 J

 E
S 

I 
8 

FN
 

Es
 

¢ 

2
 

Jef for 

Jaffer y
d
 

On
 
f
a
l
 

3 

1 

1 

14 

1é& 

14 

17 

i i 
1: 

5 

3 

3 

y; 
i Hf 

1s 

1 

1 

LE 

% Jafferso 

St. Marlin 

Martin 

Martin 

Martin 

Martin L
R
 

GR
 

SB
 

SE
 

TO 
i 

Forula : SEAL 

Black Fosrulation? 1346715, 

Registration 

Rlack Redistration! 

Uzriance? 

 



Fre 

Bienville 

Eo 

Cad 

i 

Red River 

Sabine 

Vernon 

Wehster 

I 

Forulation? 

Black PForulation? 

Fedistratian? 

Black Redistration 

Variance? 

HENDERSON 

Tt1Fos 

1 
yen 

25280, 

434631, 

224980. 

CONGRESS TONAL 

 



pe
 f

r 
h
e
 

dwell 

shahouls 

orncordls 

M
o
n
o
 
T 

, prroll 

ark lin i 

lle 

Lincoln 

4 

Frec 

\ard-5 

Word 1 

Word 8 

Ward 20 

Fosglationd 

Fel Lor: 

Lyration? 

bration 

Variance 

HEMDER? 

TE1Fos 

4 2048 
1 
2228] 

BlkFos % 

STOMAL 

T+1! 

FL. 

1 
REA, 

z & FY 

 



I nl RE RN 1 é Henderson congressional lan 

ID Parish Proc # Tt1Po» BElkPar BIE 2 TtlRed RlkReg RI1LZ 

Washington 44207, 13308. 3 ; 271883, HH21 

St. Tammarw 110554, 13845, 12.57 G3T41 S487, 

Tangirahoa 20498. 24295, 20.11 1458 G749, 
Livingston 58455. 2202. 4 4 2P31o 1208, 

East Raton Roud 257293. 2268. 

East Raton Rous 1403, 324. 

Baton Rous 3273. JINX, 

Bator Roud 15872, 1516. 

Baton Roud 808, bd A 
Baton Roug 2041, 1215. 

Baton Roud 1206. 141. 

Baton Rous 10464, 214 

Baton Rous 1-10 172725, 27252, 

Baton Roudg 1-11 1359, mab. 

Baton Roug i 2042, 2781. 

Baton Rous = 2534, 2495 

Bator Roug 1-1" 3353. 32508 fr 1: : Ti75=, 

Baton Rous | 2313 1211, 20 whi 414. 

Baton Roug 1-1 17200, 1143 y= 434 , 1&7. 

Baton Roug 1-30 2020, 1817 3 5 L022, 438, 

Baton Roug 1-3: 1354. 1355 « 23 B21. 80. 

BEztorn Rous | =n Rr 221. 25, Sa 85. 0 

Baton Rous 1-3 1425. 2 i 2462, Be 

Baton Rod 1-35 1032, 2 
Baton Rous 1-34 8439, 2582, 

Baton Roug 1-37 2949. 7293 

Baton Rous 1-38 AE dn 1 

Baton Rous 3 P40, 

Baton Roug 1-4 1403, 

Bator Roug 1-4] 14680. 

BEzton Rous 1-42 1278, 

Baton Roug 1-43 1300. 

Baton Roug | 5114, 

Baton Roug 1-493 2a 

Baton Rous 1-44 10940, 

Bator Rousg 1 14327. 
Baton Roug 1-4¢& 1512. 

Baton Roug 1-46 2647. 

Baton Roud ) 2h. 47 40.20 

Baton Roug Ha 173%. ) 0.00 

Baton Roug 1-5 Zo02, 13 0.34 
Baton Roudg 1-55 2786, 14, + 50) 
Baton Rous. 1-5 1284. 4, 0,31 

Baton Rous 1-5 1305, 6. 0.446 

Bator Roud ; 2000, 1220, 21.87 

Baton Roudg ¢ 2029, 0.26 

Baton Roug 1-47 2841. 2 97.71 

Baton Roug 1-6 1012. & 0.7% 

Baton Rous 4% 1442, i, 7.84 

Baton Roug 1-44 608. 0.00 

Baton Rous 1-4; 14327, } 892.00 

Baton Roudg 1-4¢ 2476, 204% 83.59 
Baton Roug 1-4 2858, (0, 48 
Baton Roud 2853. 20.52 
Baton Roug Z| LISA ER he Ys 44 IN3 ! 0.23 
Baton Roudg 1-7: 34548, Wi i. , ry Q.04 

0 sea vee a PN » * ; ~ or 2 ~~ 

= 
d
a
a
 

a
 

~N
 
P
I
N
R
O
 

01
 

3 
d
=
 

N
O
 

D
O
 
R
E
 

W
N
 

on
 

<
 

st 

I
T
 

I]
 

B
N
W
 

h
o
m
o
 

wo
w 

Fo
ok
 

oo
b 

oF
 

oF
 

oF
 

oF
 

oF
 

[3
3]
 

fi 
an
 

31
] HH 1} 

fl
e 

Be
t 

Hr
 

i 
[3 

3 
Fo
} 

Ng
 

LA
 

Pt
 

¢ 
~~
 

x
 

by) 
“
N
W
N
 
O
D
O
R
 

N
D
M
L
I
D
 

D 

 



Rw ho 1 JP 

Rote: 1-74 2434. 

Rous = S421. 

Rous 5412, 
Ros 148%, 

Fons 1123. 

Rous S136. 

Fos 1494, 

Rous 1041. 

Rous 1840, 

Fons RP. 

Fos 

Fa
l 

dh
 
ha

 
sd
 

-
 

a
s
 

+ 
ga

 

Forulation?t oe 

Rlack Forulation? 108440, 20.45 % 

Registrations pS 

Elack Registration? AZIIR,. 14,173 

Variance! =0:03 

 



Henderson congressional slan 

Fariash of ThiPow: BlEPos. BIL 7 TtlRed RBlkReg RLRA 

Lafauelle 150017, S334, 20.27 Farah. 12240, 

Vermilion 48458, &42%5, 13.24 27044, 3220. 

Acadia SHA2T 2902, 12,58 302172. 4801, 

Jefferson Davis 32148. 4146. 12.11 1464624, 27464, 

Cameron 2334: 524. Behl 5434, 226 
Caleoasieu 147048, 34284, 21.22 84819. 15124, 

Allen 21320, 4383, 20,49 12081. 2193; 

Beasuredard 2ATH22, 4756 14.02 13870, 143%, 

Martin eaa3, 1008, 44,15 $1723. 

Martin 2008. 2329, 11.40 41. 

Martin 1355. 1462. 11.9246 L664, 
Martin 1201. 231. 44,21 L900. 

Martin 278. 24, 2.61 451. 

Martin 2388, 1544, 44.466 574, 
Martin L469, 125, 22.15 4834, H

N
O
 

0
 

Forulation? 

Black Forulation? 102512, 19.0% 7% 

Redistration? 273142. 

Black Redgistration? ATP3IN, 14.230 

* 
Variance? =f}, fy 

 



HENDERSON CONG 2] FLén 

TLlFoe Blane Blk 3% TLIRmg RlkF 

R27. 
12015, 

240475 
84128, 

10542, 

BO2Z, 

m
p
m
 

A
 

a 
Fo
al
 

vw 
+ 

Fees 

Fons 

Ross 

Ross 

SERINE: 

Ros 

Fos 

Fons 

Foye 

Forges 

Forglation? Baa?