Letter from Napoleon Williams to James Kellog and William Quigley RE Major v Treen

    NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 

efense d 10Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 » (212) 586-8397 

May 7, 1983 

James Kellog, Esq. 
William P. Quigley, Esq. 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Major v. Treen (E.D. La.) Civil Action 
82-1192 
  

Dear James and Williams: 

I received this day a copy of your Motion for 
Summary Judgment in the above case with respect 
to the recent Congressional reapportionment in 
Louisiana. The overall population deviation of 
21.95% is not only too large under the federal 
standards for Congressional reapportionment, 

but would also be too large for reapportionment 
of a state legislature. I really am glad that we 
finally got the lawsuit off the ground. 

I think the memorandum of law is far too skimpy, 
especially for a judge who has only recently been 
appointed to the bench. The fact that the judge 
litigated one or more voting rights cases before 
joining the bench would not be, I think, determina- 
tive. 

There are some housekeeping details I must mention. 
First, when our names appear on any legal documents, 
they should be listed, in the order indicated, as 
follows: Jack Greenberg; James M. Nabrit, III; 
Napoleon B. Williams, Jr., Lani Guinier. We also find 
it helpful in identifying the attorneys who take re- 
sponsibility for submission of legal papers, to 
include our telephone number. If there is publicity 
concerning a matter in which we are involved, it is 
also preferable to mention the organization by its full 
name or, in the alternative, to mention Jack Greenberg's 

name since his name, unlike the other names, have a 
very strong association with the organization 

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes 

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it 
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.  



Robert W. Cullen, Esq. -2- May 7, 1982 

I will try and submit to you next week a draft of a 

supplementary memorandum of law which you may wish to 

consider filing in support of your request for sum- 

mary judgment. The motion, by the way, was, I thought, 

a very clever move. 

As always, I wish you well. 

Sincerely, 

2) f 

Napoleon B. Williams, Jr. 

NBW/xr 

cc: Jack Greenberg, Esqg. 

Lani Guinier, Esq. 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| |\ VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL. SECTION: 'H (D) {0 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

NOTICE OF MOTION 
  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Motion for Summary Judgment will 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

- 

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 
WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 
STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

  

  
LANI  GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc 

- 10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

||DATE: April 30, 1982 
i 

  

   



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

CIVIL ACTION 

|| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

|| DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C) 1 

  

CLASS ACTION 
  

| 
| THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 

| 

  
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS 
  

NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who submit that the following material 

facts are uncontested in this matter: 

Ti   
Act No. 3 of the 1972 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, 

|| amended by Act. No. 697 of the 1976 session of the Legislature, established the 

present congressional districts for the State of Lodlatuaa. 

It. 

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

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

ing to 1970 Census figures. 

III.   The population deviations and relative deviations of those eight (8) 

{ldistricts were as follows when they were enacted: 

1970 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (%) 
DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

  

1 -562 +12 

-598 13 

+177 .03 

-126 .02 

455,205 -193 .04 

456,178 +780 17 

455,014 -384 .08 

456,291 +893 19     
Iv, 

i 1 

I 
IR 

| 
{population and relative deviations as follows: 

With 1980 Census figures, these eight (8) congressional districts have  



1980 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (%) 

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

523,271 -2.22 vi ads2 

461,802 -63,695 -12,12 

571,131 +45,634 + 8.68 

508,593 -16,904 wey ,23 

507,539. -17,958 = 342 

577,140 +51,643 + 9.83 

+ 3. 

Za. 

  

543,235 +17,738 38 

511,261 -14,236 71 C
0
 

yy
 

O
N
 

Un
 

Sr
 
W
N
 

~~
 

Vv. 

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

population deviation of .31 percent. 

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

| 4 

|deviation of 21.95 percent. 

H 
  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

k. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 
NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

| DATE: April 30, 1982 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

||[BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 
I 
'\ DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

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

matter, declaring that the current congressional districts of Louisiana are 

‘unconstitutional. Plaintiffs make this motion on the basis of the pleadings 
i ol 

1 

llin this matter, the statement of uncontested material facts, and the memorandum 
1) 

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

| 
. | 

motion are that there are no material facts in dispute and plaintiffs are 

| 
| 
i 

{ 
{ 
{ 

| 

! 

{ 
i entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

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

LANI GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B., WILLIAMS 
NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs   
April 30, 1982 

CERT LEICATE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon 

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

I 
|| 30thday of April , 1982, 

   



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

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

THREE COURT CASE JUDGE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

I. 

THE LAW ON CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT 
  

Congressional reapportionment requirements derive from the United 

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

Ld which applies to reapportionment of the state legislatures. 

The Supreme Court has applied a much stricter population apportionment 

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

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

1} 
L.Ed. 2nd. 519, 1969. 

  

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

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

Thus, the Supreme Court has rejected congressional redistricting plans 

{with deviations of 13.1 percent (Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 89 S.Ct. 
  

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

|| percent (see White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed. 2nd. 335, 
  
  

111973). 

Iz. 

THE FACTS OF THESE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 
  

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

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

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



if 
{iin population between the number of persons in the district and the norm. This 

i | 

larrives at a population variation of raw numbers. This population variance is 
it 

|| then divided by the population norm to arrive at a percentage of deviation. If 

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

variance is a plus variance, and the district is "underrepresented". If the 
H 
\jdistrict under examination is smaller (has fewer people) than the norm, the 

{| 
H 

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

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

iiing the largest plus variance and the largest minus variance. This is how the 
H 
il 

ljoverall population deviations were arrived at. 
il 

| Therefore, an examination of the present congressional districts in 
| 

j{iosisisas leads to the following result: Five of the Louisiana congressional 

| 
| districts have negative deviations, and three of the districts have positive 

||deviations. The most extreme negative deviation is in Congressional District 2,   
where that district is found to have 63,695 fewer persons than they should have. 

IE 

IThe greatest positive deviation is in Congressional District 6, which Mas 51,643 

people more than the norm dictates. 
| 

This means that the people in Congressional Districts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 

jive a greater voice in Congress than the people in Congressional Districts 3, 

| 
| 
i6 and 7. 
i 

{ 

{ 

111, 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

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

| They should therefore he declared unconstitutional by this Court. 
I] 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

    R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

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

  
LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 
NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys: for Plaintiffs 

April 30, 1982  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJORS, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

Plaintiffs * NO. 82-1192 

VERSUS x SECTION H (D) (C) 

TREEN, ET AL ® THREE-JUDGE COURT CASE     

Defendants CLASS ACTION   

NOTICE OF FILING MOTION TO RECUSE 
  

Please take notice that the attached Motion to Recuse, Affidavit in 

[| Support, and Memorandum of Law are filed this day in the Eastern District of 

|| Louisiana. This matter will be heard as it is set by the Court. 

Respectfully Submitted: R : 
\ [] Fi — 1 ™N\ po / 

tr = { 

| Dal NN 
R. UAMES KELLOAG, Trial Attoryey \ 
WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY ( 

SPEVEN SCHECKMAN Ness”? J 

“STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

(504) 524-0016 

  

JACK GREENBERG 

JAMES M. NABRIT, III 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR. 

LANI GUINIER 

10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATE: May 24 , 1982