Supplemental Memorandum

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., Civil Action 

No. 82-1192 
versus Section: H (DY (C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
DAVID C. TREEN, etc., eb-al. CLASS ACTION 

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM 
  

This matter has been realloted on a temporary basis to Section D(C) 

for consideration of a pending motion to consolidate this litigation with 

that of Couhig, et al. v. Brown, C.A. #82-1136, a Section D (C) case. The 

State has filed a motion to dismiss the Couhig matter and this memorandum 

sets forth the position of the Major plaintiffs on that issue, under the 

peculiar circumstances of this case. 

The complaint filed by the Couhig plaintiffs, stripped to its 

essence, asks for declaratory and injunctive relief establishing that the 

1982 Louisiana congressional elections be conducted under the 1976 plan 

or apportionment (hereinafter, "1976 plan"), rather than under Act 20 

of the Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature (hereinafter, 

"1981 plan"), on the grounds that the latter has not been approved by 

the United States Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act. 

The argument made by the Couhig plaintiffs is that since the 1981 plan. 

has not been approved, the only legal plan is that of 1976, and Mr. Couhig 

and his supporters are entitled to run det that plan. the Major 

plaintiffs, of course, are adamant that the 1976 plan cannot be used because 

it is unconstitutional under the one person, one vote principles. 

It seems obvious that even if the United States Department of Justice 

approves the 1981 plan, there will be court proceedings challenging the plan 

through the context of the Major case. That matter will proceed regardless 

of the determination by the Justice Department, although the constitutionality 

of the 1981 plan will not be at issue if it is not approved by Justice. The 

litigation, which inevitably will lengthen the period of uncertainty over 

districts felt not only by Mr. Couhig and his supporters, but also, significantl 

the uncertainty felt by the Major plaintiffs and the class they purport to 

represent, i.e. black registered voters. This Court is uniquely aware of the 

need for minority citizens, minority organizations, and potential minority 

office seekers to know the electoral districts well in advance of the election,    



to minimize confusion and maximize the impact of minority voters. To this 

extent, although many black voters do not agree with the political stands of 

Mr. Couhig, the interests of black voters in a speedy determination of the 

issues in this and the Couhig case is of paramount importance. 

The Major plaintiffs respectfully submit that the appropriate course, 

if this Court feels that the Couhig litigation premature at this time, 

is not to grant the state's motion to dismiss, but, rather, to issue a 

stay of proceedings in the Couhig matter for thirty days. It has been 

reported in the news media that the material requested by the U.S. Department 

of Justice has been sent to them. If so, they have sixty days under the 

Voting Rights Act to issue a determination as to the 1981 plan, but in 

all likelihood, will do so much sooner. Within thirty days, the complicated 

legal situation stands a good chance of being somewhat clearer. Rather than 

issuing a determination as to the validity and viability of the 1976 plan, 

prior to a determination by Justice, it is respectfully submitted that the 

more prudent course would be simply to stay the matter for thirty days. The 

responsible officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have been informed of 

the Couhig and Major litigation, and it must be assumed that they will act   

with the dispatch which is appropriate under these circumstances= 

CONCLUSION: To the extent that they have an opinion on this pending 

motion, it is the position of the Major plaintiffs that the state's motion 

to dismiss should be denied, and that, as an alternative, the Couhig 

litigation should be stayed for thirty days to give the U.S. Department 

of Justice time to complete their determination under the Voting Rights Act. 

Dated: April wal 1982 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stanley A. Halpin 

R. James Kellogg 
William P. Quigley 

Steven Scheckman 

631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 
504/524-0016 

Lani Guinier 

Napoleon B. Williams 
NAACP Legal Defense and Education 

Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10010 
212/586-8397 

By: en tC fli 

  

  

Attorney for Plaintiffs        



CERTAPICATE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon 

opposing counsel by hand delivery of same, this 7) day of April, 1932. 

with the exception of Mr. DeJean, to whom a copy was mailed, this same 

date.   
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

{~