Letter to Lani from James Kellogg RE Major v Treen

    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 

MARK S. GOLDSTEIN 

RONALD J. PURSELL 

June 21, 1982 

Ms. Lani Guinnier 

Napoleon B. Williams 

NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Re: Major v. Treen (Congressional) 
  

Dear Lani and Napoleon: 

As you both know by now, the United States Department of Justice has given 

its approval to the 1981 Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment. The staff 

person working on the plan (Robert Kwan) and the head of the Voting Rights 

Section apparently recommended against approval, but were overruled by Mr. 

Reynolds. The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing several recent 

developments and get some tentative suggestions for our preparations for 

trial. 

The defendants have now filed an answer to the complaint, and the three 

judge court has been established. We feel we have an excellent panel, con- 

sisting of Judge Collins, District Judge Fred Cassibry, and Circuit Judge 

Henry Politz. Each is a Democrat, and each is a liberal. To be honest, I 

don't think we could have chosen a better panel ourselves. A few housekeeping 

chores remain to be done: the motion for certification of the class, discovery, 

and a trial memorandum. I spoke with Judge Collins' law clerk today, and 

feel that we can expect a status conference with Judge Collins and/or the 

other two judges within the next week to ten days, to establish a discovery 

schedule and a trial date. The latter task will be a bit tricky, given the 

fact that we want to wait for trial until after the effective date of the 

Voting Rights Act Extension (probably August 7), but before the first primary 

(September 11). My best guess at this point would be a five day trial some- 

time between August 9 and September 1, in all likelihood at the beginning of 

that period. I don't believe we will have any problem putting off the trial  



Major v. Treen 

Page 2 

until August, but of course, that remains to be seen. 

Bill Quigley, Steve Scheckman, and I feel that we can do most of routine 

trial preparation that will be needed, including the taking of depositions, 

amassing documents and exhibits, and any procedural matters which may arise. 

Each of our schedules are fairly light for next sixty days, and we intend 

to put in whatever time is necessary. 

As TI explained on the telephone recently, however, we feel that because of 

the nature and timing of this litigation, we need substantial input from you 

in the planning phase, as well as the trial in appelate phases. Because of 

the timing, our case will probably be one of the first in the nation under 

the Voting Rights Act Extention and, given the excellent panel, as well as 

the unique factual setting (including the fact that a plan with a black majority 

district passed both houses of the Legislature and the fact that the staff 

employees at the Justice Department recommended disapproval of the plan ul- 

timately submitted), we feel that the Major Case is an excellent vehicle 

for clarifying the legal principles involved. I think probably the best 

course for us to pursue would be to have each of us come to New York to meet 

with you and other experts in this area to formerly strategize for litigation 

approach. On our way back from New York, we could stop in Washington and get 

the materials from Robert Kwan at the Justice Department, as well as look at 

the supporting documents filed by the State of Louisiana. The only additional 

cost for the stop in Washington would be hotel and expenses for one night for 

the three of us: 1I believe that with three of us, we could wade through all 

the material necessary in two days. 

I'm in the process of trying to line-up the best local experts in the history of 

racial discrimination in Louisiana and get a quotation for their fees to 

testify. We also will have to firm up with Dr. Gordon Henderson, his willingness 

and ability to testify at trial. 

Please let me hear from you at your earliest opportunity concerning my 

suggestion that we fly to meet you for consultations, because I feel that 

the defendants and the Federal Court will be anxious to schedule a conference 

in the near future. 

Sincerely, 

RJK/mc 

cc: Stanley Halpin