Answers to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

    % 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURI 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

3ARBARA MAJOR, et al., ClVIL ACT 

Plainiiffs 

-against—- 

-: TREEN, et al. 

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS' 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

OF ‘N 

through undersig l, hereby 

ries propounded to them. These answers are set forth notwithstand 

of Local Rule 7-A of the Local Rules of : by the defendants and with 

full reservation to the plaintiffs of ight to object 

ned fubture. 

L. Defendants have been provided a copy of a proposed 

Complaint which would remove allegations concerning the Louisiana 

Representatives as that plan was precleared by the United States Department of 

ice in 1982. Accordingly, these responses will not be addressed to that 

Additionally, as explained i proposed Amended Complai 

the congressional pl: i : t prior to the passage of 

‘Xtraordinary Sessi : moot and plaintiffs do not intend 

allegations as to ¥. lan [In sum, then, these Answers refer only to 

of the 1981 Extraordinary Session. 

do not 

he question presented is not susceptible of 

form. In general however, it is noted that both the Voting Rights 

amended in 1982 special the Senate Report) and Rogers wv. 

942) set forth the factors 

act finder must look to determine whether a districting plan exists because i 

was intended or has the result or effect of diminishing or diluting the politi- 

minority group  



them elfective utiliza 

direct evidence, but rather are the ultimate questions 

on circumstantial evidence presented provi an evidentiar 

ultimate determinations. Accordingly, 

ify with specifi 

identify the details or sources of such i 

liluted or it is not: the determination of whether it is rn is made 

examination of the Rogers and Voting Rights Act factors. 

A partial list of Factors, gleaned from various sources, i included 

in Voting Rights Hct: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 67 (1982) at 

These factors include: 

(1) some history of discrimination; (2) at-large voting 
or multi-member districts; (3) some history of "dual" school 
systems; (4) cancellation of registration for failure to vote; 
(5) residency requirements for voters; (6) special requirements 
for independent or third-party candidates; (7) off-vear elect ions; 
(8) substantial candidate cost requirements; (9) staggered 
terms of office; (10) high economic costs associated with 
registration; (11) disparity in voter registration by race; 
(12) history of fact of proportional representation; (13) 
disparity in literacy rates by race; (14) evidence of racial 
bloc voting; (15) history of English-only ballots: (16) 
history of poll taxes; (17) disparity in distribution o 
services by race; (18) numbered electoral postsd; (19) 
prohibit-ons on single-shot voting; and (20) majority vote 
requirements. 

1 he Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong. 

at pp. 28-29 also lists typical factors: 

l. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or poli- tical subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process: I ’ 

a 

1 
2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized: 

3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot pro- visions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportun- ity for discrimination against the minority group; 

/ 4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members 
I 

minority group have been denied access to that process: 

5. the extent to which members of tl minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discr ination in such areas as education, 
employment and health, which hinder their ability to particip ectivel in the political process:  



6. whether political campaigns have been characterized by 
racial appeals; 

/. the extent to which members of the minority group have been e 
public office in the jurisdiction. 

Additional factors that in some cases have had probative val 
plaintiffs’ evidence to establish a violation are: 

whether there is a significant la responsiveness on the part of 
to the particularized ds of the members of the minority 

whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's 
voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practic 
procedure is tenuous. 

The Supreme Court in Rogers x Lodge, supra, listed similar 

The question of witnesses to be used in proving these 

discussed below. 

Documents which tend to disclose is information includ 

paper articles, election returns, census data and various document 

by the defendants through discovery requests. Additionally, 

expert witnesses for the plaintiffs will rely on certain data and 

certain reports. Said date and reports are not now in the custody of plaintif 

Reports of experts will be exchanged at the time previously established by this 

court. 

See answer to number two. 

See answer to number two. 

Governor David Treen's actions 

Louisiana legislature in proposing his plan for Congressiona 

and in making public statements announcing an intent to veto the Nunez Plan, 

as well as Legislative maneuverings by the Governor and his aides and legisla- 

tive representatives will be presented. At this time 

supplying this information are news articles 

documents subn :d by the State of 

of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and submitted t« 

pursuant to their discovery requests in this litigation. 

to which paragraph 22 of the Original Comp 

are those incorporating the so-called ; ' The various bills proposed 

were amended a number of times during the Special Session and plaintiffs have 

t completed a detailed study of what bill in what form passed which house  



passing both houses in 

ase, the Complaint 

Memo dated November 9, 1981 from Dave 

slature in which he stated that 

acceptable a if it came 

of denying v 

those involved in the process will show the Governor 

te result of eliminating the Nunez Plan from conside 

» coupled with the factors in Rogers and the Voting 

ablish the requisite intent. The only documents re 

those submitted to the United States Department of 

ouisiana and provided to the plaintiffs through disc 

3. The amended complaint sets forth the cl that the Governor 

members of the Legislature had an affirmative obligat 

vestiges of part racism. he question of whetl 

a black majority district is Orleans Parish is 

one. 

amended complaint to be 

had the purpose, result 

citizens, see answer to number 

| 10. Although the Court has established December 

for the exchange of witnesses, plaintiffs would not object to advancing 

date and having a mutual exchange of witnesses at xd upon time. 

11. To the extent that question eleven 

personally, the files which anv have lude only the 

litigation, newspaper clippings and 

relating to the Voting Rights 

the attorneys for plaintiffs (through 

trial preparation materials and are t subjec » discovery 

that the defendants have substantia d of the materials 

their case and are unable without undue hardship to obtai 

equivalent the materials 

objected 

and 

 



12. Plaintiffs object that the information requested in question 

twelve is within the work product rule. 

13. Although the Court has established December 21, 1982 as the date 

for exchange of the reports of witnesses and January 5, 1983 as the date for 

exchange of the reports of experts, plaintiffs would not object to advancing 

those dates and having a mutual exchange on these matters at any agreed upon 

l4. Only the plaintiffs and counsel for plaintiffs assistec 

preparation of these answers. 

[hereby declare under penalty of perjury that 

foregoing answers are true and correct s to the 1 

of my knowledge at this time. 
ar / /, 

// / / 
y 4 

L702 AL 0 A 
R+ JAMES KELLOGG 

Respectfully submitted, 

R. JAMES KELLOGG 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

504/524-0016 

Jack Greenberg 

James M. Nabri 

Napoleon B. Wi 

Lani Guinier 

NAACP Legal Defense & Education 

Fund 

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

R./ JAMES KELLOGG 
ATTORNEY FOR