Correspondence from Guinier to Stevas

    RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 41P40111011.41110.21411101111111461644.ete. 

MICHAEL H. RUBIN 
RICHARD A. CURRY 
R. KEITH COLVIN 
MARY TERRELL JOSEPH 
KELLY WILKINSON 
DON R. SCHNEIDER 
BERNARD J. SHARKEY, JR. 
RODOLFO J. AGUILAR, JR. 
STEPHEN P. STROH,SCHEIN 
MELANIE M. HARTMANN 
CHRISTINA B. PECK 
R. STEVEN KL1MCZAK 
SHANNAN SWEENEY R1EGER 
JOSE R. TARAJANO, JR. 
DENISE NELSON AKERS 

Julius L. Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
C. Lani Guinier 
Pamela S. Karlan 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

November 30, 1987 

RE: Chisom v. Edwards, #87-3463, 
in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

SUITE 1400 
ONE AMERICAN PLACE 

BATON ROUGE, 
LOUISIANA 70825 

504/383-1400 

TELECOP1ER: 504/343-3076 

Dear Counselors: 
Enclosed is a copy of a Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Louisiana 

District Judges Association and a copy of Brief Amicus Curiae of the Louisiana District 
Judges Association, in support of the position of Defendants-Appellees, which has been 
filed with the Fifth Circuit today. 

Sincerely, 
RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A Professional Law Corporation 

CBP/ljc 
Enclosure 

Christina B. Peck 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 87-3463 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL, 
Plaintiffs-Appellants 

VERSUS 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL, 
Defendants-Appellees 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

MOTION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY 
LOUISIANA DISTRICT JUDGES ASSOCIATION 

BY ATTORNEYS: 

Michael H. Rubin, Trial Counsel 
RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A Professional Law Corporation 
Suite 1400, One American Place 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 
(504) 383-1400 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 87-3463 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL, 
Plaintiffs-Appellants 

VERSUS 

EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL, 
Defendants-Appellees 

MOTION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY 
LOUISIANA DISTRICT JUDGES ASSOCIATION 

NOW COMES the Louisiana District Judges Association (the "LDJA"), 

through its undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to allow it file an amicus brief on 

the following grounds: 

1. 

The LDJA is a corporation consisting of each elected district judge 

throughout the State of Louisiana. The LDJA is a party in a related suit, entitled "Janice 

G. Clark, Orscini L. Beard, Eddie G. Crawford, Norbert C. Rayford, Voter Information 

Project, Inc., Louis Scott, Sylvia Cooks, Connie Sadler, Lloyd Dangerfield, Tom Nelson, 

Albert Richard, Brenda Ford, Edward Larvadain, and Josie Frank v. Edwin W. Edwards, 

Governor of Louisiana; William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana; James H. 



Brown, Secretary of State of Louisiana, in their Official Capacities as Representatives of 

the State of Louisiana," Civil Action Number 86-435, Section "A," Middle District of 

Louisiana. The LDJA is a party to the Clark v. Edwards suit by virtue of a Petition for 

Intervention which was granted on the 9th day of September, 1987. 

2. 

Counsel for the LDJA filed a motion with the District Court in Clark v.  

Edwards, on the 12th day of August, 1987, contending that Section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act does not apply to the judiciary, or, in the alternative, that Section 2(B)'s "results 

test" cannot be applied to the judiciary. Although a hearing on this motion took place on 

the 4th day of September, 1987, a decision has not been rendered and the motion is still 

under consideration. 

3. 

Counsel for the LDJA also filed a motion to stay a hearing in Clark v. 

Edwards on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to the judiciary and to set 

aside the trial date in the case (then scheduled for November 16, 1987) pending an 

outcome of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Chisom. The LDJA's motion was filed on 

August 12, 1987, and noticed for a hearing on September 4, 1987. As the LDJA noted in 

its motion to stay (which motion was denied): 

"If the Fifth Circuit affirms the Chisom holding, then 
the instant case before this Court will be mooted. On 
the other hand, if the Fifth Circuit reverses the 
Chisom holding, then there will be authoritative law in 
the Circuit concerning the applicability of the Voting 
Rights Act; in addition the Circuit Court may indicate, 
in dicta, what remedies are feasible and which are not 
feasible. 

- 2 



• 
No prejudice can be shown to the plaintiffs delaying 
either the hearing [then scheduled] or the trial . . . 
because no election is pending or scheduled in the near 
future for which an injunction will be requested. 

If it appears that the Fifth Circuit will not rule in a 
timely manner, there is ample opportunity, prior to the 
start of the next legislative session in May, 1988, to 
have a hearing on Section 2's applicability and a trial 
on the merits (if necessary)." 

4. 

The District Court in Clark v. Edwards has reset the trial to January 11, 

1988 and has indicated, in a status conference, that there will be no delay in the trial 

date, regardless of whether a decision in Chisom is handed down by the Fifth Circuit. 

5. 

Counsel for the LDJA is aware that FRAP 29 provides that an amicus brief 

shall be filed "within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or 

reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave 

for later filing." Counsel for the LDJA is also aware of Local Rule 31.2 which provides 

that request for a late filing of an amicus brief "will not ordinarily be granted." 

6. 

The LDJA submits that the late filing of this amicus brief should be 

granted because: 

A. A decision in this case, holding that Section 2 of 
the Voting Rights Act applies to the judiciary, 
and holding that the "results test" of Section 
2(B) can be applied to judicial elections, will be 
binding on the District Court in the Clark v.  
Edwards case and will drastically impact the 
scope of the trial and the type of evidence to be 
presented. 



B. Although a hearing has been held on the 4th day 
of September, 1987, the District Court in Clark 
v. Edwards has not yet rendered a decision on 
the applicability of Section 2 to the judiciary 
(or whether the plaintiffs in that case may use 
"results test" under Section 2(B)). 

C. The District Court in Clark v. Edwards has 
refused to stay the trial of the case (currently 
set for January 11, 1988) overruling a motion of 
the LDJA to stay the trial until this Circuit had 
ruled on the Chisom appeal. 

D. The filing of the amicus brief by the LDJA will 
not delay oral argument in the case, may be of 
aid to the Court, and adds information on 
important practical effects of a ruling in this 
case, the issues which are res nova for a federal 
appellate court. 

E. The LDJA's brief (attached to this motion) is 
not lengthy. 

THEREFORE, the LDJA moves this Court to allow it to file an amicus 

brief in support of the position of the defendants-appellees. 

BY RNEYS: 

Michael H. Rubin, • unsel 
RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A Professional Law Corporation 
Suite 1400, One American Place 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 
(504) 383-1400 

- 4 



to: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I certify that a copy of this motion has been mailed today, postage prepaid, 

Attorneys for Defendants 
Mr. M. Truman Woodward, Jr. 
1100 Whitney Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Blake G. Arata 
• 210 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4000 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 

A. R. Christovich 
1900 American Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
William P. Quigley 
631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans Louisiana 70130 

Roy Rodney 
643 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Attorneys for the United States Department of Justice 
Wm. Bradford Reynolds 
Assistant Attorney General 
Roger Clegg 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
Jessica Dunsay Silver 
Mark L. Gross 
Attorneys 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana this 

Mr. William J. Guste, Jr. 
Attorney General 

Kendall L. Vick 
Assistant Attorney General 

Eavelyn T. Brooks 
Assistant Attorney General 
Louisiana Department of Justice 
234 Loyola Avenue, 7th Floor 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

Julius L. Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
C. Lani Guinier 
Pamela S. Karlan 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Ron Wilson 
Richards Building, Suite 310 
837 Gravier Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

Ichael H. Rubin 

5 - 



• • ,`-

RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 

MICHAEL H. RUBIN SUITE 1400 
RICHARD A. CURRY ONE AMERICAN PLACE 
R. KEITH COLVIN • BATON ROUGE, 
MARY TERRELL JOSEPH LOUISIANA 70825 
KELLY WILKINSON 504/383-1400 

DON R. SCHNEIDER  BERNARD J. SHARKEY, JR. December 4, 1987 
RODOLFO J. AGUILAR, JR. TELECOP1ER: 504/343-3076 
STEPHEN P. STROHSCHEIN 
MELANIE M. HARTMANN 
CHRISTINA B. PECK 
R. STEVEN KLIMCZAK 
SHANNAN SWEENEY RIEGER 
JOSE R. TARAJANO, JR. 
DENISE NELSON AKERS 

Julius L. Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
C. Lani Guinier 
Pamela S. Karlan 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

RE: Chisom v. Edwards, #87-3463, 
in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

Dear Counselors: 

Due to clerical inadvertence, a copy of the Motion to File Amicus Curiae 
Brief by the Louisiana District Judges Association" was not enclosed with the brief on 
Monday, November 30th. Thus, I am enclosing a copy of the Motion with this letter. 

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. 

Sincerely, 
RUBIN, CURRY, COLVIN & JOSEPH 
A Professional Law Corporation 

0416,4 Jfaci_ 
Christina B. Peck 

CBP/ljc 
Enclosure