District Ethnic Totals and Registered Voters

Working File
January 1, 1981 - December 31, 1981

Cite this item
District Ethnic Totals and Registered Voters preview

10 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Major v. Treen Hardbacks. District Ethnic Totals and Registered Voters, 1981. 7055db34-c803-ef11-a1fd-6045bddc4804. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e4fc04c4-362d-4e5c-bf21-23c29f2edd99/district-ethnic-totals-and-registered-voters. Accessed November 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    ” 

/ [recon I 

PRESENT CD DISTRICT ETHNIC TUTALS AND REGISTERED VOTERS DATE November 6, 198% 

STATE SENATE PAGE 1 

TOTAL WHITE BLACK AM, INDIAN RSIAN/PI SPANISH DORIC. 

TUT VOTERS WHITE VOTERS BLACK VUTERS TREFN LAMBERT REAGAN 
ae eos ed 

£23,273 } ) i,201 0.2% 7.176 1.6% 3,185 0.5% 

243,521 3.3 > 3 88,446 53.5% 76,761 45.5% 100,436 52.6% 

461,802 7.3 188,146 0 i,168 0.3% 4,302 0.9% 3,734 0.8% 

181,221 61,025 58,647 49.1% 60,757 50.9% 63,709 45.8% 75,490 

571,13} > 0 83.23% 83,378 § 5,084 0.9% 3.624 0.6% 3,223 0.6% 20,778 

259,602 2 00 6.2% 30,436 120,335 65.4% 63,728 34.6% 124,861 62.4% 75,139 

$08,593 162,166 1,682 0.3% 2,249 0.4% 2,948 0.6% 10,469 

212,194 2 47,722 7 52.9% 69,220 47.1% 96,750 55.1% 76,769 

507,539 685 7 162,880 0.1% $77 0.2% 1,374 0.3% 5,168 

241,470 0 3 3 30,911 49.4% $1,077 50.6% 106,792 S$6.7% 81,402 

577,140 0 Q 170,911 0.1% 2,785 0.5% 2,469 0.4% 8,848 

279,560 217,084 62,474 2 43.6% 111,085 56.4% 109,692 52.0% 101,252 

43,235 30 £09,321 20.1% 0.2% $392 0.3% 1,560 0.3% 9,127 

79, 680 47,158 6 54.3% 5.192 45.7% 101,724 50.5% 29,546 

169,685 3 0.1% 1,066 0.2% 1,138 0.2% 8,362 

74,865 9.0 36.1% 123,037 63.9% 88,518 45.4% 106,453 

 



DISTRICT VARIANCE REPORT 
PLAN: PRESENT CD DATE: Wovember 6, 1981 

FILE: BTATE SFHNATE PAGE: 1 
IDEAL DISTRICT POPULATION 525,497 

DIST. WUMBFR TOTAL POP. > POP. DIFFERENCE 

$23,271 
461,802 

D
D
N
 

D
W
N
 

STATE AVERAGE VARIANCE 5.47% 
OVEKALL POPULATION VARIANCE 21.95% 
PRT LL EE EEE ET 

POP, / NUKBER OF DISTRICTS 
POP. = IDEAL DIST. POP.) / IUEARL DIST. POP, 

VARIANCES) / NUMBER OF DISTKICTS 

- LOWEST DIST. POP,)/IDERL DIST. POP, 

7 CHARACTER MEANS ‘DIVIDED BY‘) 

IDEAL DIST. POP. 
% DIST. VARIANCE 

% AVERAGE VARIANCE 

§ OVERALL POP VRR, 
(*¥% NOT 

"
n
u
m
 

-
 

 



) GA Al <7 Mo . &< i 
PLAN : SENATE PLAN DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND REGI D VOTE! 

! November 11, 199% 

FILE : STATE SENATE 

: 1 
TOTAL WHITE BLACK AM, INDIAN ASIAR/PI OTHER SPANISH ORIG, 

DISTRICT TOT VOTERS WHITE VOTERS BLACK VOTERS Ra EF 9SiA cone eevees had de fb LLL Tp p— Secessweeseees ee TeTececeeccesceaee hnbada ddd ER halal dah LT Tp, TeeTeTeceasssesess 1 525,319 357,785 63.1% 154,976 29.5% 1,209 0.2% 7.475 1.4% 3,374 0.7% 20,690 3.9% 

247,881 194,508 78.5% - 53,373 21.5% 

526,605 283,204 53.8% 234,316 44.5% 1,270 4,294 3,521 18,468 3.5% 

206,560 126,554 61.3% 79,880 38,7% 

526,364 435,255 82.7% 79,997 15.2% 4,995 3,357 { 2,760 18,490 3.5% 

241,245 210,422 87.2% 30,690 12.7% : 
525,067 352,076 67.1% 165,978 31.5% 1,704 

2,987 { 10,678 

219,307 170,223 77.6% 48,984 22.3% 

r
a
s
)
 

525,668 358,768 68.2% 163,824 31.2% : 
{ 1,412 5,348 

524,374 387,019 73.8% 131,568 2s5,1% 
/ 2,381 8,265 

254,898 208,870 8%1,9% 46,226 18,1% 

e
e
 

H
E
R
E
 

525,186 415,809 79.2% 105,508 20,1% 2 
1,519 8,915 

274,812 225,898 083.1% 45,896 16.9% 

525,389 321,329 61.2% 201,096 38,3% 
1,177 8,253 

266,266 178,615 67.1% 87,643 1232,9% 

 



over Foun Hno0pPrem 31 

Scusz On “r/o 

PLAN PROPOSAL B DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND REGISTERED VOTERS $ November 4, 1981 
FILE STATE SENATE H i 

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

ww» Possess neweoew oToeceasseeeeememees Teves scaseomsecw® | 

526,666 419,996 79.7% 6,909 1.3% 3,776 0.7% 24,797 io.) 
220,036 191,192 86.9% 28,658 

525,138 230,855 44.0% 281,506 6,001 . 4,286 18,650 
229,007 129,408 56.5% 99,579 

525,581 404,952 77.0% 111,834 : 2,032 1,843 14,106 
249,598 202,585 81.2% 46,954 

525,067 352,076 67.1% 165,978 2,322 2,987 10,678 
219,307 170,223 77.6% 48,984 

527,656 360,705 68.4% 163,880 1,019 1,414 5,355 
249,768 188,260 75.4% 61,108 

525,074 399,576 76.1% 119,493 2,714 2,510 9,049 
263,773 217,589 82.5% 46,184 

523,847 415,313 79.3% 104,676 1,518 1,520 8,859 
270,601 225,240 83.2% 45,343 

524,943 327,770 62.4% 193,810 1,256 1,295 T.611 
253,836 176,851 69,7% 76,983 

 



HM» oo yg of : 

yy, NE Fea 0 LVEDD Sd 4 7 /F / 

DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND REGISTERED VOTERS PLAN: PROPOSAL B DATE: November 5, 1981 FILE: STATE SENATE PAGE: 1 OF 4 

DISTRICT # 1 DIST. VARIANCE 0.22% DIFF. FROM IDEAL 1,420 

TOTAL ~~ WHITE BLACK AM.INDIAN  ASIAN/PI OTHER ~~ SPANISH 926,660 419,9% 04,106 1,879 6,909 L776 24,797 100.00. 79.7% 12.92 842 aN 0.74 4.7% 

TOTALV WHITEY BLACK V  TREEN LAMBERT REAGAN CARTER 220,036 194,192 28,658 93,078 62,986 110,760 67,907 100.04 86.8% 13.0% 59. 62 0.4 62.0% 38.04 

DISTRICT § 2 DIST, VARIANCE  -0.07) DIFF. FROM IDEAL ~-359 

TOTAL WHITE BLACK AM.INDIAN  ASIAN/PI OTHER ~~ SPANISH 925,138 230,855 283,506 490 6,001 4,286 18,650 100.00 44.021 54,0 0.1% 1.1% 0.8% 3.64 

TOTALY GHITEY BLACKY  TREEN LAMBERT REAGAN CARTER 223,007 129,408 99,579 74,505 76,045 74,437 102,293 100.0X 56.5% 43.5% 43. 5¢ 50.5 42.1% 97.9% PRESS "RETURN" TO CONTINUE OR *S* TO STOP THIS REPORT [ ] 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   



DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND REGISTERED VOTERS 
PLAN: PROPOSAL B DATE: November 
FILE: STATE SENATE PAGE: 2 OF 4 
  

DISTRICT #3 DIST. VARIANCE 0.022 DIFF. FROM IDEAL 

TOTAL ~~ WHITE BLACK AM.INDIAN  ASIAN/PI OTHER 
525,581 404,952 114,834 4,920 2,032 1,843 
100.04 72.00 2. 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 

  

TOTALV WHITEY BLACKY  TREEN LAMBERT REAGAN 
249,598 202,585 46,954 91,513 89,824 97,747 
100.0 81.2%  {8.8X 90.5 43.5% 52.2% 

DISTRICT # 4 DIST. VARIANCE  -0.084 DIFF. FROM IDEAL 
  

TOTAL ~~ WHITE BLACK AM.INDIAN ASIAN/PI OTHER 
525,007 392,076 165,978 1,704 2,322 2,387 
100.0 62.4% 3.6K 0.31 0.44 0.64 

TOTALV WHITEY BLACK Y  TREEN LAMBERT REAGAN 
219,307 {70,223 48,94 80,383 7M, 113 0,476 
100.00 72.61 2,0 BL. 6.9 54.9% 
PRESS “RETURN® TO CONTINUE OR "5° TO STOP THIS REPORT ([_] 

  

  

  

   



PLAN: PROPOSAL B 

FILE: GTATE SENATE 
  

GT. VARIANCE 

BLACK AM. INDIAN ASTAN/PL 
C58 {,019 

pisRIcTd § 

aTAL WHITE 

7,5 300,705 163.060 
00.01 ean LL 

TAL WHITEY BLARY 

  

  

 



DISTRICT ETHNIC TOTALS AND RECISTERED VOTERS 

DATE: November 

PLAN: PROPOSAL B 

FILE: STATE SENATE 
PAGE: 4 OF 4 

  
0.31% DIFF. FROM IDEAL 

DISTRICT & 7 DIST, VARIANCE 

  

G4. 4 

pISTRICT § 8 DIST. UARIGNGE 0.41% DIFF. FROM IDEAL 

TOTAL WHI BLACK AM.INDIAN ASIAN/PI OTHER 

624,43 327,70 193,810 #12 1,256 32 

0.2% 
100.04 62.4% 36.9% 

TOTAL V WHITEY BLACK V 

253,836 176,854 76,583 69,839 : ’ 80 

38.2% 61.84 
100.00 60.7% 30.3 2h 

PRESS "RETURN" TO CONTINUE OR *S* TO STOP THIS REPORT Ll 

  

    

          

          
          

  
            

  
  
              
        
        
  

  
        

   



Act No. 20 (19€1) 

Arguments FOR 

1. Preservation of status quo (e.g., minimal change in 
Livingstcn district) 

2. Enhancement cf black voting strength in District 2 

(frcm 4C.7% under old plan to 44.5% under new plan) 

No deliberate creation of a black majority district 

No division of East Baton Rouge Parish like Nunez Plan 

Arguments AGAINST 

1. Frustration of creation of black majority district 

and perpetuation of fragmentation of minority 

community in New Orleans (and no chance for increase 

in black population because area of New Orleans 

included in District 2 not grcwing while white areas 

in Jefferscn Parish rapidly growing). 

2. Linking disparate communities of interest (urban Orleans 

with suburkan Jefferson, different parishes) 

3. Does not follow natural boundary of Mississippi River 

 



Senate Bill No. 5 (Nunez Bill) as of November 4, 19€1 

Arguments FOR 

Recognition of population grovith in Jefferscn Parish 

Not linking disparate communities of interest (e.g., 

urban/suburban, different parishes) 

Observance of natural boundary of Mississippi River 

Creation of black majority district 

Arguments AGAINST 

1. Deliberate creation of a black majority district 

2. Change of District 1 represented by Representative 

Livingston 

3. Division of East Baton Rouge Parish

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.