Correspondence from Kellogg to Politz (Judge); Judgment on Decision by the Court

    LAW OFFICES OF 

QUIGLEY & SCHECKMAN 
631 ST. CHARLES AVENUI 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 
TELEPHONE: 504-524-001€ 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY IN ASSOCIATION WITH 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN R. JAMES KELLOGG 

MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

RONALD J. PURSELIL 

October. 5, 1983 

Judge Henry Politz 
Room 2B04 
500 Fannin Street 
Shreveport, LA 71101 

Re: Major v. Treen, Civil Action No. 82-1192, Three Judge Court 
  

Dear Judge Politz: 

Please find enclosed the original and one (1) copy of the 
Judgment in the above-captioned matter in accordance with the 
opinion of September 23, 1983. 

Additionally, inasmuch as we assume that the opinion will 
soon be sent to the publishers, we would like to call your at- 
tention to the following typographical errors: (1) On page 32, 
the opinion refers to Gordon Henderson as "Dr. Pearson"; (2) 
page 28, there is a reference to District 1 being dominated by 
Jefferson Parish: it should be District 2; (3) on page 39 
"registration in voting" should be "registration and voting"; 
(4) the references to Joan Hartman's article 50 GEO. W.L. Rev. 
consistently refer to her throughout as Hartford. 

A copy of this letter and Judgment has been sent to Judges 
Cassibry and Collins, as well as to all counsel of record. 

Sincerely, 

a l ~ 7 

K AC Yovetnd leo 

a RIJK:mc R. James Kellogg 
CC: (with enclosure) 

Judge Robert Collins 
Judge Fred Cassibry 
Martin L.C. Feldman 
Kenneth C. DeJean 
Lani Guinier 
Stanley Halpin 
William P. Quigley 
Steven Scheckman  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

  

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., 

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 82-1192 

Section C 

VS. 

JUDGMENT ON DECISION BY THE 
DAVID C. TREEN, etc., et al., COURT 

  

Defendants. 
  

This action came on for hearing before the Honorable Henry 

A. Politz, United States Circuit Judge, the Honorable Fred J. 

Cassibry, United States District Judge, and the Honorable Robert 

F. Collins, United States District Judge sitting as a three- 

judge court. The issues having been duly heard and the Court 

having decided that Act 20 of the 1981 First Extraordinary 

Session of the Louisiana Legislature is in violation of § 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 on the 

grounds that it impermissibly results in dilution of the vote 

of minority voters by failing to recognize the concentration of 

black voters in Orleans Parish, and instead dividing and sub- 

merging this cohesive concentration in two congressional dis- 

tricts thereby minimizing their voting strength and denying 

black voters an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their 

choice; 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: 

l. Act 20 is declared illegal and unenforceable; 

2. The defendants, their agents, officers, and  



successors, and anyone acting in concert with 

them are enjoined from taking any action to 

enforce the provisions of Act 20, including 

any action to prepare for any election for 

members of the United States House of 

Representatives; 

The defendants, their agents, officers and 
successors and anyone acting in concert with 

them are further enjoined from enforcing any 
other redistricting plan unless that plan 

fully meets the requirements of § 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act as amended and all other 
applicable requirements of federal law in- 
cluding the requirement that the redistrict- 
ing plan completely eliminate and avoid any 
dilution of minority voting strength; 

This Court will consider further relief at 
the time stated in its September 23, 1983 

opinion, including the adoption of a plan 
submitted by plaintiffs or such other 
remedial Court plan as the Court may adopt 
if the legislature fails by January 31, 1984 
to enact a plan which measured by the 
standards set forth in the statute, 42 U.S.C. 
1973, and the accompanying opinion and con- 
sidered in the light of available alterna- 
tives does completely cure the defects found 
in Act 20 and completely avoids and eliminates 
any dilution of minority voting strength as 
well as meets all constitutional and applic- 
able federal statutory requirements; if the 
Court adopts a duly enacted plan proposed 
by defendants, that plan may still not be 
enforced until the Department of Justice 
preclears it pursuant to § 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act; 

Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable 
costs and attorneys fees, in an amount to 
be determined by the Court. 

, Louisiana, this day of October, 1983.