# Appendix — Beer v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0110%3A02

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 425 U.S. 130

## Text

ee ee

Supreme Court, U.S.

I. ;
APPENDIX Leos
Volume I DEC 16 }97%4
L MICH AE, ie OR IR. Ciro |
HER
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER TERM, 1973

No. 73-1869

Perer H. Beer, Pump C. Ciaccio, JoserpH V. D1rRosa,
CLARENCE O. Dupuy, JR., JoHN D. LAMBERT, JR.,
AND JAMES A. MorEAU, Members of the Council of
the City of New Orleans, Acting For and On
Behalf of the City of New Orleans, Appellants

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and
Wiuu1AM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United
States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,
and
JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Er AL., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia

DOCKETED JUNE 13, 1974
PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED OCTOBER 15, 1974

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ED GED ncccccccoencunecenseendenesesusceses 2
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under Voting

SEED GAGS ce nccéeccccccccnesedeeseséeopessece 8

Answer of the United States of America ............ 35

Motion to Intervene as Defendants ................. 40

PUD GR BORD acces ccdccccecccccscoscécces 53

PE ff FPP TOTTT TTT TTT TT TT TTT 54

BUGMOGTENS GE TUGGSSEENGD occ cccctcccescccscccccces 08
Witnesses:

UB, MD oc cckuc dcececuseséucesauses 91

EY Ge SED cccccccsesecccccecoeceens 308

SE SEE, nc csoncdcnecdccccncoedewses 395

SE Bi, GND aédiecccdedcccucesceses 324

SS EE pen iciccbebeadsanesueneanean 355

Sc doce sekdwnsedeeewenes 445

SE TA, INE, Oe oc cccicccccecesccceses 469

Sh i, PE nc cn ddanevehcacaceeeennn 247

Se Gs EE a cavauvesdsasdenbeseus 171, 294

PID oh chub ec Gekeeuseeekebdsendedaseessnasaes 499
Deponents:

Philip C. Ciaecio (excerpts) ............... 584

Cecil W. Carter (excerpts) and Exhibits .... 585

SE i, EE s anceuneneaseueeeadeunees 499

a SE -« caneenciunaseusndees sos 533

Jonathan A. Eckert (excerpts) ........... 570

Johnny Jackson, Jr. (excerpts) ............ 580

John D. Lambert, Jr. (excerpts) ............ 555

James N. Pezant (excerpts) ............... 575

Verbatim Transcript of Special Council Meeting on Re-
districting Held on February 15, 1972 (excerpts) 609

Composite Chart of Electoral Voting Areas from De-
fendants’ Exhibit 1 and 5 (in color) ............ 620

ii Table of Contents Continued

Defendants’ Exhibit 2: 1961 Redistricting Plan ..... 621

Defendants’ Exhibit 3: Moreau’s Original Redistrict-
ing Plan Proposed January

* Perprererrrrr ett 622
Defendants’ Exhibit 4: 1972 Redistricting Plan Ordi-

nance 4796 M.C.S. .......... 623
Defendants’ Exhibit 5: 1973 Redistricting Ordinance

rrr 624

Defendants’ Exhibit 6: Redistricting Plan Proposed
by New Orleans Chapter,
PME Snesencsduceuseess 625

: Redistricting Plan Proposed
by Orleans Parish Republican
Political Action Council .... 626

~]

Defendants’ Exhibit

[Note: The Opinion of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia is included as Appendix A; the
Judgment of that Court as Appendix B; and the Notice of
Appeal to this Court as Appendix C in the Jurisdictional
Statement filed herein. ]

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER TERM, 1973

—————

No. 73-1869

Peter H. Beer, Puiuip C. Ciaccto, JosepH V. DrRosa,
CLARENCE O. Dupuy, Jr., Joan D. LAMBERT, JR.,
AND JAMES A. Moreau, Members of the Council of
the City of New Orleans, Acting For and On
Behalf of the City of New Orleans, Appellants

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and
WituiAM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United
States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,
and
JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Er AL., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia

APPENDIX

Volume I

2

Docket Entries
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
1973
July 25—Complaint, appearance Exhibits A thru H filed

July 25—Summons, Copies (2) and Copies (2) of Complaint
issued D.A. & A.G. ser. 7-30

July 25—Petition for designation of a three-judge court.
July 25—Motion to advance case for hearing: P & A’s.

July 26—Request for the designation of a Three Judge
Panel. (N) Waddy, J.

July 30—Designation of the Hon, Spottswood W. Robinson,
III, U.S.C.A. and the Hon. Howard F. Corcoran,
U.S.D.C. to serve with the Hon. Joseph C. Waddy,
U.S.D.C. as members of a Three-Judge Panel to hear
this ease. (N) MeGowan, J., Acting Chief Judge.

Aug. 1—Application of defts. for order permitting service
of subpoenas pursuant to 42 USC 1973 1(d) ; ¢/m 8-1-73.

Aug. 1—Order Granting deft’s #1 permission to issue
Subpoenas pursuant to the provisions of 42, U.S.C.
1973 (d). (N) Waddy, J.

Aug. 1—Order Granting motion of pltfs. to advance case
for hearing on merits set for 10:00 A.M., 8-9-73; direct-
ing parties to submit statements of legal position and
eases upon which they rely not later than noon, Wed.,
&-8-73 to the Court. (N) Waddy, J.

Aug. 6—Exhibits C and H to the complaint with memo-
randum.,

Ang. 8—Pre-Trial Memorandum for the United States.
Aug. 8—Pre-Trial Memorandum by pltfs; ¢/m 8-8-73.

Aug. 8—Motion of Johny Jackson, Jr., Theodore Marchand,
Larry Jones, James Singleton, Melvin Bush to inter-

1973

vene as defts.; exhibit A; P&A; attachment; c/m
8-8-73; app. of James M. Nabrit, III (10 Columbus
Circle, New York, N. Y.) Deposit $5.00 by Nabrit.

Aug. 9—Appearance of Charles E. Cotton for deft. inter-

venors.

Aug. 9—Appearance of Charles E. Williams, III, for deft.
intervenors.

Aug. 9—Appearance of Stanley A. Halpin, Jr. for deft.
intervenors.

Aug. 9—Trial by Three Judge Panel begun; Motion of
defts. to intervene argued and granted; respited until
8-10-73 @ 10:00 a.m. (Rep. E. Fedoration) 8S. Robin-
son, J., U.S.C.A., Corcoran, J. Waddy, J. U.S.D.C.

Aug. 10—Trial resumed; respited to October 17, 1973 @
10:00 a.m. (Rep. Vernell Marshall) S. Robinson, J.
U.S.C.A., Corcoran, J. Waddy, J., U.S.D.C.
(Injunctive order to be presented 8/13/73)

Aug. 13—Motion of pltfs. for extension of time to file pro-
posed order; ¢/s 8/13/73.

Aug. 13—Order extending time to and including 8/14/73 @
3:00 p.m. to submit proposed order. (N) S. W. Rob-
inson, J. U.S.C.A., Corcoran, J., Waddy, J.

Aug. 13—Answer of Johnny Jackson, Jr., et al, intervenors
to the complaint.

Aug. 14—Memorandum to the Honorable Spottswood Rob-
inson, III, U.S.C.A., the Honorable Howard F. Cor-
coran, U.S.D.C., and the Honorable Joseph C. Waddy,
U.S.D.C., from James R, Stoner, dated 8/14/73. (fiat)
Robinson, J.—U.S.C.A.

Aug. 14—Order enjoining the Office of City Councilman of
the City of New Orleans from conducting any elections
pending final declaration of the rights of all parties

1973
in this action by this court. (N) Robinson, J.—
U.S.C.A., Corcoran, J.—U.S.D.C. Waddy, J.—U.S.D.C.

Aug. 31—T ranscript of Proceedings, August 9, 1973; pages
1 thru 171; Rep-k.T. Fedoration; Court’s Copy.

Sept. 21—Application of deft. 41 to shorten time for
responding to request for admissions; ¢/m 9/21/73.

Sept. 21—Requests of defts. for admissions; ¢/s 9/21/73.

Sept. 26—Answer of deft. U.S.A. to the complaint; ¢/m
9-24-73; appearance of M. Karl Shurtliff, Dept. of
Justice.

Sept. 26—Calendared CAL/N.

Oct. 2—Opposition by pltfs to defts’ application for order
shortening time for responding to request for admis-
sions; ¢/m 10-1-73.

Oct. 3—Order directing pltfs’ request for admissions be
served & filed with the Clerk of Court not later than
12:00 P.M., 10-15-73, without prejudice to motion of
pitfs’ Yor an extension or time within which to respond
or the motion by any party for a continuance of trial,
until 10-16-73. (N) Robinson, J., (U.S.C.A.,)
Corcoran, J. Waddy, J.

Oct. 15—Deposition of Oretha Haley taken on Oct. 4, 1973.
Oct. 15—Deposition of Nils R. Douglas taken on Oct. 4,

1973.

Oct. 15—Deposition of Clarence O. Dupuy taken on Oct. 5,
1973.

Oct. 15—Deposition of Joseph V. DiRosa taken on Oct. 5,
1973.

Oct. 15—Deposition of Cecil W. Carter taken on Oct. 4,
1973 with attachment.

Oct. 15—Deposition of John D. Lambert, Jr. taken on Oct.
%, 1973.

1973
Oct. 15—Deposition of Philip C. Ciacci, taken on Oct. 3,
1973.

Oct. 15—Response of pltfs to deft’s request for admissions;
c/s 10-15-73.

Oct. 16—Deposition of Johnny Jackson, Jr. taken on Oct.
2, 1973.

Oct. 17—Trial Resumed; respited until 10-18-73, 10:00
A.M.; (Rep-V.Marshall) Robinson, J., (U.S.C.A.),
Corcoran, J., Waddy, J., (U.S.D.C.)

Oct. 18—Trial Resumed; respited until further notice;
(Rep-E.Ossen, A.M. & P.M., Al Koffman, A.M. &

Corcoran, J., Waddy, J., (U.S.D.C.)

Oct. 24—Transcript of proceedings, August 10, 1973, Vol
11, Pages 172-399 (a) (g); Reporter: Vernell A.
Marshall (Court Copy).

Oct. 24—Transcript of proccedings, October 17, 1973, Vol
III, pages 400-474/499 500-562/600; Reporter: Vernell
A. Marshall (Court Copy).

Oct. 24—Transcript of proceedings, October 18, 1973, Vol
IV, pages 600 (a)-645/670, 671-708/715, 716-762/766,
767-775; Reporter: Vernell A. Marshall (Court Copy).

Oct. 24—Letter to Judge Waddy from Vernell A. Marshall,
Court Reporter in re fees for transcripts. approved
Waddy, J.

Oct. 29—Objection by pltfs to admission of defts’ exhibit
No. 31; ¢/m 10-26-73.

Nov. 20—Motion of non-incumbent candidates for the New
Orleans City Council for leave to file as amici curiae
a petition to expedite case memorandum; exhibit;
¢/m 11-20-73, appearance of Arthur F. Mathews and
John H. Korns (1666 K St., N.W. 20006).

1973
Nov. 23—Brief by pltfs; appendix A; ¢/m 11-23-73.

Nov. 28—Reply by pltfs to motion of non-incumbent candi-
dates for leave to file petition as amicus curiae; c/m
11-27-73.

Dec. 4—Order granting pltff’s. motion to leave to file on
behalf of Seven-Non-Incumbent Candidates for New
Orleans City Council as amici curiae and all parties
are hereby instructed to respond to the petition within
ten (10) days of the filing of this order. (N) Waddy, J.

Dec. 11—Motion of pltfs’ for entry of default pursuant to
rule 55(a), FRCP; P&A; ¢/m 12-11-73.

Dec. 12—Trial Brief by Intervenors; ¢/m 12-7-73.

Dec. 12—Deposition of Suleiman Azeez taken on Oct. 24,
1973 for the deft.

Dec. 13—Post-Trial Brief of defts; Appendix A&B; Pro-
posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; ¢/s
12-13-73.

Dec. 14—Response of United States of petition of Amici
Curiae; ¢/m 12-14-73.

Dec. 17—Response of pltfs’ to Amici Curiae Petition to
expedite case and set timetable for elections; ¢/m
12-14-73.

Dec. 19—Response of intervenors to petition of Amici
Curiae; ¢/m 12-17-73.

Dec. 26—Reply brief by pltfs; ¢/m 12-26-73.

1974
Jan.4—Opinion. (N) Robinson, J., (USCA), Corcoran,
J. Waddy.

Jan. 4—Order dismissing petition of the amici curiae with-
out prejudice to refiling in another forun. (N) Robin-
son J. (USDC), Corcoran, J., Waddy J.

1974

Jan. 17—Trial by three Judge Panel resumed & concluded ;
taken under advisement. Rep. V. Marshall. Robinson,
USCA; Corcoran, J. & Waddy, J, USDC.

Mar. 15—Order substituting William B. Saxbe Attorney
General instead of Elliot L. Richardson, (N) Robin-
son, J., (USCA), Corcoran, J. & Waddy, J.

Mar. 15—Cpinion. Robinson, J., (USCA, Corcoran, J. &
Vaddy, J.

Mar. 15—Order denying plaintiffs motion for declaratory
judgment; dismissing case, defts. and intervenors re-
cover costs. (N) Robinson, J. (USCA), Corcoran, J.
& Waddy, J.

Apr. 5—Notice of appeal by plaintiffs to the Supreme Court
of the United States; ¢/m 4-5-74. Paid $5.00 by Stoner.

Oct. 24—Certified copy of Letter from Supreme Court of
the United States noting probable jurisdiction.

Nov. 11—Copy of Letter from the United States Supreme
Court requesting transmittal of record on appeal.
(Orig. filed in CA. 338-75

Nov. 29—Stipulation re Exhibits to be transmitted with
record to the United States Supreme Court.

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civir Action No. 1495-73

Peter H. Beer, 5855 Bellaire Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana

Purr C, Craccio, 7341 Springlake Drive,
New Orleans, Louisiana
,

JosepH V. DiRosa, 318 W. Lakeshore Parkway,
New Orleans, Louisiana

CLARENCE QO. Dupvy, Jr., 6941 Argonne Street,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Joun D, Lampert, Jr., 1560 Pressburg Street,
New Orleans, Louisiana

James A, Moreau, 6308 Pratt Drive,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Members of the Council of the City of New Orleans, Acting
k'or and On Behalf of the City of New Orleans
Plaintiffs
vs.

Unrrep States or America and Evuiot L. Ricwarpson,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED States, individually
and in his official capacity, Washington, D. C.

Defendants

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Under Voting Rights Act

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action by virtue
of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439;
42 U.S.C. § 1973¢e.

2. Plaintiffs are six of the seven members of the Council
of the City of New Orleans with respect to which the pro-
visions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
amended, are in effect.

9

3. Plaintiffs seek to administer a change with respect to
voting different from that in force prior to November 1,
1964.

4. The present Charter of the City of New Orleans,
which was adopted by the people of the City of New Or-
leans, became effective on May 1, 1954, Pursuant to the
provisions of this Charter, the Council of the City of New
Orleans consists of seven members, two of whom are
elected from the City-at-large and five of whom are elected
from Districts consisting of geographical areas which are
composed of different Wards of the City of New Orleans.
Copy of the Charter of the City of New Orleans, Article ITI,
Section 3-103, is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘A’’,

5. The boundaries of the Wards of the City of New
Orleans have been in foree many years, dating back to the
Charter of the City of New Orleans, adopted by the Legis-
lature of the State of Louisiana by Act 159 of 1912. These
Ward boundaries are set out in the extract from Act 159
of 1912 which is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘B’’.

6. In some eases, these Ward boundaries go from the
Mississippi River to the Lake Pontchartrain, while in other
instances, these Ward boundaries are generally set out
within the core of the City of New Orleans. (See map of
the City of New Orleans, attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘C”’
which delineates these boundaries. This map shows the
Wards 1 to 17 by circled numerals.)

7. Pursuant to the provisions of the present Charter of
the City of New Orleans (See. 3-103(3), Exhibit ‘‘A’’) the
Council of the City of New Orleans is required to redis-
trict the five Councilmanic Districts of the City of New
Orleans into equally populated Jistricts following each
decennial census of the United States.

8. In compliance with this requirement, the Council of
the City of New Orleans passed Ordinance Number 4796

10

Mayor Council Series, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit ‘‘D’’.

9. It was not mathematically possible to redistrict the
Council by Wards of the City because the population of
the various Wards differ. Therefore, the plan adopted
generally provided that the districts would be composed
of the Wards with Precincts from some Wards incorpo-
rated into adjacent districts in order to meet the equal
population requirement. The districts as of this redis-
tricting plan are set out in the annexed Exhibit “CO” in

block letters A-E.

10. This Ordinance Number 4796 Mayor Council Series
was submitted on May 4, 1972 to the Attorney General of
the United States because of the requirement of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended.

11. On January 15, 1973, the Attorney General inter-
posed an objection to this plan. See letter of the Attorney
General attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘E’’. '

12. As seen from this letter, the reasons of the Attorney
General for interposition do not object to this plan be-
cause of the vertical lines of the proposed districts going
from the Mississippi River to the Lake Pontchartrain,
which are the lines which some of the Wards and there-
fore some of the Districts have, but set out other reasons.

13. Subsequent thereto, the Council passed Ordinance
No. 5154, Municipal Council Series, on May 3, 1973, which
was an amendment to the original redistricting Ordinance.
This plan was submitted to the Attorney General on May
9, 1973. A copy of that Ordinance is attached hereto as

Exhibit ‘‘F’’.

14. On July 9, 1973, the Attorney General interposed an
objection to this plan. See letter of the Attorney General
attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘G’’.

11

15. The Councilmanic Districts provided for by this sec-
ond re-districting are set out on the attached Map as Ex-
hibit ‘‘H’’. The wards are designated by circled numerals
and the Districts are in block letters A-E. |

16. The population of each of the Districts by black
and white persons and by black and white registered voters
is set out as follows:

First PLAN PopuLaTIon

REG. VOTERS (JUNE- 1973)

BLACK WHITE BLACK
District ‘‘A’’ 120,971 38,011 82.960
tA” ‘ 38, if 22.9
District hs B 117,378 69,440 47,938 176%
DIstTRICT “co” 117,253 47,974 69,279 26.4%
District D’ , 118,337 01,447 66,890 37.5%
District ‘EB? 119,532 60,4386 = 59,096 ~=—s-_- 43.0%

Seconp PLan PopvuLaTIon

REG, VOTERS (JUNE-1973)

BLACK WHITE BLACK
Districr “A”? 117,901 36,665 81,236 228%
District “B”? 118,678 76,109 42,569 53.1%
Districr ‘*C”? 119,023 42,651 76,372 23.6%
Disrricr “D”? 118,337 51,447 66,890 37.5%
Districr ‘*E” 119,532 60,436 ~=-59,096 = 43.0%

17. Many pubiie hearings were had on these two plans
and everyone was given an opportunity to be heard.

18. The next primary election for councilmen under
Louisiana law will be on November 10, 1973, with the
qualifying dates for this primary being in the latter part
of August, 1973. The general election will be held in March
1974, and the assumption of office will be in April, 1974.

19. The Council has for many months been trying to
ammnrs a proper redistricting of the Council. Early in
1972, shortly after the final 1970 census figures were first

12
made available in October of 1971, the Council of the City
of New Orleans passed the hereinbefore set out Ordinance
4796 M.C.S. (See Allegation No. 10) by a vote of 6-1,
(Councilman Beer voting against). That Ordinance was
thereafter disapproved by an Assistant Attorney General
as hereinbefore set out and no further action was taken by
the Council in connection therewith (See Allegation No. 11).

20. Shortly thereafter, in August, 1972, the Council
passed Ordinances 4922 M.C.S. and 4923 M.C.S. The Ordi-
nances would have essentially given the electorate the right
to choose between retaining a seven-member Council, or
expanding the Council to either nine or eleven members.
(Even earlier, the Council had passed 4795 M.C.S. and 4891
M.C.S. to accomplish the same result but these Ordinances
were subsequently held inoperative by judgment of the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans). The Mayor
of the City of New Orleans, Hon. Moon Landrieu (herein-
after referred to as the Mayor), thereafter vetoed 4922
M.C.S. thus presenting the electorate with only two alter-
natives: either to keep the seven member Council or to
replace it with an eleven member Council (Councilman
DiRosa, Moreau, Dupuy and Beer voted to override the
Mayor’s veto, but the measure required a two-thirds vote
by specific Charter prevision and, hence, the veto stood).

21. The remaining proposals, in the form necessitated
by the Mayor’s veto, were submitted to the electorate and,
after much campaigning in support of the proposal by va-
rious groups and organizations, the proposed expansion of
the Council to eleven members failed by a very substantial
margin of votes.

22. After this failure on the part of the various propo-
nents of an expanded Council, the Council again turned
to the job of reapportionment under the specific applicable
mandate of the City Charter, but, almost immediately,
Councilman Sapir introduced Ordinance 5026 M.C.S. which,
again, provided for a charter chan ,- (again requiring a
vote of the people) seeking to increase the Council to nine

13

members (Essentially the same proposal previously vetoed
by the Mayor). Again the Council voted to submit the
matter to the electorate. Again various groups and organi-

zations campaigned for passage of the proposal. Again it

— and the Council continued to consist of seven mem-
ers.

23. Thereafter the Council held numerous meetings with
the director and various members of the Council Research
Staff and held public hearings and meetings with a wide
range of groups, individuals, and committees, in an effort
to devise a workable, responsible and equitable plan.

24. Thereafter the Council deliberated Ordinance 5154
M.C.S., (See Allegation 13) which was essentially a plan
that had been worked out by the Council Research Staff
and its director at the suggestion of Councilman Moreau.
The director and staff of the Council Research Department
(all Civil Service classified personnel) had taken into con-
sideration, on a totally impartial basis, all of the data and
information obtained during the various public hearings,
conferences, and meetings, hereinabove described, supple-
mented by their own exhaustive research. The plan which
‘as painstakingly worked on, and finally submitted by the
Council Research Staff (and, thereafter, proposed by Coun-
cilman Moreau) had many points of similarity with the
plan proposed by the National Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People. (Districts ‘‘A’’ and ““B”’
were identical),

—_— — , ;
2). The Council discussed and considered this plan which

had then come to be identified as the ‘‘ Moreau Plan’’ and

in due course, the Council passed Ordinance 5154 M.C.S
r¢ y » a 'n >} ‘ iP ; y 4

by a vote of 6-1. (Councilman Sapir voting against).

26. Thereafter Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. was submitted, to
the Office of the Attorney General of the United States for
action under the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. Objection to the plan was interposed

14

by the Assistant Attorney General (See Allegation 14)
without a full and fair apraisal of all relevant information.

27. Plaintiffs believe that the redistricting plan as con-
tained in the Ordinance No. 5154 M.C.S. is a fair plan of
redistricting which does not have the purpose, and will not
have the effect, of denying or abridging the right to vote
or account of race or color.

Wuenrerore, the premises considered, plaintiffs pray:

1. That the Court enter a Declaratory Judgment ad-
judging that the redistricting plan as contained in O. di-
nance No. 5154 M.C.S. does not violate the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended.

2. For such other general and equitable relief as the
nature of the case may require.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Buake G. ARaTa
Blake G. Arata
City Attorney
City of New Orleans

/s/ Ernest L. SauatTicn
Ernest L. Salatich
Assistant City Attorney
City of New Orleans
Room 2W23—City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
(504) 529-4311

Sroner, TreeseE & RuFFNER

By: /s/ James R. STONER
James R. Stoner
1000 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 293-2131

Counsel for Plamtiffs

15

Exhibit “A”

Section 3-101. Legislative Powers. (1) All legislative
powers of the City shall be vested in the Council and ex-
ercised by it in the manner and subject to the limitations
hereinafter set forth.

(2) The Council shall have the right to levy any and all
classes of taxes, excises, licenses and fees necessary for
the proper operation and maintenance of the municipality
for the payment of debt, and for capital improvements
that are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Section 3-102. Number and Terms of Councilmen. The
Council shall consist of seven members, of whom five shall
be elected from districts and two from the City at large.
The terms of councilmen shall be four years beginning on
the first Monday in May next following their election ex-
cept that a councilman selected to fill a vacancy shall serve
only for the remainder of the unexpired term.

‘Section 3-103. Councilmanie Districts. (1) The City
shall be divided into five Councilmanic Districts. Each
District shall serve as the basis for electing a district coun-
cilman. The five Districts shall be as follows:

(a) District ‘‘A’’ shall be composed of the Four-
teenth Ward, the Fifteenth Ward, the Sixteenth Ward,
and the Seventeenth Ward.

(b) District ‘‘B’’ shall be composed of the First
Ward, the Tenth Ward, the Eleventh Ward, the
Twelfth Ward, and the Thirteenth Ward.

(c) District ‘*C’’ shall be composed of the Second
Ward, the Third Ward, the Fourth Ward, the Fifth
Ward, and the Sixth Ward.

'The changes in the composition of the five ecouncilmanie dis-
tricts, as reflected herein, were effectuated by ordinance No. 2296
M.C.S., Adopted October 19, 1961.

16

(d) District ‘‘D’’ shall be composed of the Sev-
enth Ward, and the Fighth Ward.

(e) District ‘‘E’’ shall be composed of the Ninth
Ward.

(2) The wards referred to in this Section shall mean
the seventeen wards of the City existing at the effective
date of this Charter.

(3) It shall be the mandatory duty of the Council to re-
district the City by ordinance within six months after the
official publication by the United States of the population
of the City as enumerated in each decennial census. Each
councilmanie district shall contain as nearly as possible
the population factor obtained by dividing by five the
City’s population as shown by the decennial census. At
the expiration of the six months period, if the Council shall
have failed to redistrict the City as herein required, the
members of the Council shall not receive any further sal-
aries until the Council shall have adopted such ordinance,
which may not be vetoed by the Mayor, and the Director
of Finance shall not issue checks for such salaries for said
periods.

Section 3-104. Qualifications of Councilmen. A coun-
cilman shall be a citizen of the United States and a quali-
fied elector of the City, and shall not hold any other public
office or position, the office of Notary Public, and office in
the military or naval forces excepted. Candidates for
Councilmen-at-large shall have been residents of the City
for two years immediately preceding their election. Can-
didates for district councilmen shall have been residents
of the districts from which elected for at least two years
immediately preceding their election. Any councilman who
removes his residence from the City or from the district
from which he was elected shall thereby vacate his office.

Section 3-105. Election of Councilmen. (1) At the elee-
tion to be held on the first Tuesday following the first

17

Monday of April, 1954, and every fourth year thereafter,
one councilman shall be elected from each councilmanic
district and two from the City at large. Each elector may
vote for one district councilman from his district and may
also vote for two councilmen-at-large.

(2) A vacancy in the office of any councilman shall be
filled as follows:

(a) If the unexpired term is less than one year, the re-
maining members of the Council shall elect a citizen with
requisite qualifications to fill the vacancy for the unex-
pired term. Vacancies shall be filled only at a regular
meeting of the Council after reasonable notice of the va-
eancy to all remaining members of the Council. Should
the Council fail to fill any vacancy within thirty days after
its occurrence, the Mayor shall appoint a citizen with re-
quisite qualifications to fill the vacancy for the unexpired
term.

(b) If the unexpired term is for one year or more, the
vacancy shall be filled by special election, to be called by
the Council within ten days and to be held within sixty
days after the occurrence of the vacancy under the election
laws of the State, at which time the electors of the City,
or should the vacant office be that of a district councilman,
the electors of that district, shall elect a citizen with requi-
site qualifications to fill the vacancy for the remainder of
term; provided, that if any special or general election is
to be held in the City after thirty days and within six
months after occurrence of the vacancy, then the election
shall be held in conjunction with such other election.

18

[Act 159 or 1912 Section 1]
Rights, powers and authority

(h) The legislative, executive and judicial powers of the
City of New Orleans shall extend to each and every matter
of local and municipal governments. The enumeration of
particular powers of this Charter shall not be held or
deemed to be exclusive, but in addition to the powers enu-
merated therein or implied thereby or appropriate to the
exercise of such powers, it is intended that the City of New
Orleans shall have and may exercise all powers, police or
otherwise, which under the Constitution of the State of
Louisiana, it will be competent for this charter specifically
to enumerate. All powers of the City, whether expressed
or implied, shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by
this Charter, and if not prescribed therein, then in a man-
ner provided for by ordinance or resolution of the Council,
it being the intent thereof that this Charter shall never be
construed as impairing or restricting the effect of the gen-
eral grant of powers of local self-government, which are
hereby bestowed.

(i) All property now publicily owned and standing in
the name of the City of New Orleans, shall be operated by
the City of New Orleans, as provided for in this Charter.

Section 2. Said city shall be divided into the following
wards and municipal districts, to-wit:

[Act 159 or 1912 Secrion 2]
Boundaries of wards and districts

First Ward, First Representative District, bounded as
follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Thalia street, and thence along the said projected line to
the center of Thalia street on the left bank of said river,

19

and thence along the center of Thalia street to the inter-
section of Claiborne Canal, and thence along the center of
Claiborne Canal to the center of Felicity road, and thence
along the center Felicity road to the left bank of the Missis-
sippi river, and thence to a point in the middle of the Mis-
sissippi river and the projected line of the center of Fe-
licity road, and thence along the center of the Mississippi
river to the point of commencement.

Second Ward, Second Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Julia street, and thence along the said projected line to
the center of Julia street on the left bank of said river, and
thence along the center of Julia street to the center of the
New Basin Canal, and thence along the center of the New
Basin Canal to the center of Carrollton avenue, and thence
along the center of Carrollton avenue to the center of Mel-
pomene Canal, and thence along the center of Melpomene
Canal to the center of Claiborne Canal, and thence along
the Center of Claiborne Canal to the center of Thalia
street, and thence along the center of Thalia street to the
left bank of the Mississippi river, and thence to a point in
the middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line
on the center of Thalia, and thence along the center of the
Mississippi river to the point of commencement.

Third Ward, Third Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Canal street, and thence along, the said projected line to
the center of Canal street on the left bank of said river,
and thence along the center of Canal street to the center of
the old Metairie road, and thence along the center of the
old Metairie road to the center of the New Basin Canal,
and thence along the center of the New Basin Canal to the
center of Rampart street, and thence along the center of
Rampart street to the center of Julia street, and thence

20

along the center of Julia street to the left bank of the Mis-
sissippi river, and thence to a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Julia street, and thence along the center of the Mississippi
river to the point of commencement.

Fourth Ward, Fourth Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Canal street, and thence along the said projected line to
the center of Canal street on the left bank of the said river,
and thence along the center of Canal street to the center
of the old Metairie road, and thence along the center of
the old Metairie road to the center of the New Basin Canal
and thence along the center of the New Basin Canal to the
south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and thence on the pro-
jected line of the center of said New Basin Canal to a
point in the middle of Lake Pontchartrain, and thence along
the middle of Lake Pontchartrain to the projected line of
the center of Orleans Canal, and thence along the said pro-
jected line of the center of the said Orleans Canal to the
south shore ef Lake Pontchartrain, and thence along the
center of the Orleans Canal to the center of the old Met-
airie road, and thence along the center of the old Metairie
road to the center of St. Louis street, and thence along the
center of St. Louis street to the left bank of the Mississippi
river, and thence to a point in the middle of the Mississippi
river on the projected line of the center of St. Louis street
and thence along the center of the Mississippi river to the
point of commencement.

Fifth Ward, Fifth Representative District, bounded as
follows—viz, : Commencing at a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of St.
Louis street, and thence along the said projected line of
the center of St. Louis street on the left bank of said river
and thence along the center of St. Louis street to the center

21

of the old Metairie road, and thence along the center of
the old Metairie road to the center of the Orleans Canal,
and thence along the center of the Orleans Canal to the
south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and thence on a pro-
jected line of the center of the said Orleans Canal to a point
in the middle of Lake Pontchartrain to the projected line
of the center of Bayou St. John, and thence along the said
projected line of the center of Bayou St. John to the south
shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and thence along the center
of Bayou St. John to the center of St. Philip street to the
left bank of the Mississippi river, and thence to a point in
the middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line
of the center of St. Philip street, and thence along the
center of the Mississippi river to the point of commence-

ment.

Sixth Ward, Sixth Representative District, bounded as
follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of St.
Philip street, and thence along said projected line of the
center of St. Philip street, and on the left bank of said river,
and thence along the center of Bayou St. John, and thence
along the center of Bayon St. John to the center of Es-
planade street, and thence along the center of Esplanade
street to the left bank of the Mississippi river, and thence
to a point in the middle of the Mississippi river on the
projected line of the center of Esplanade street, and taence
along the center of the Mississippi river to the point of
commencement.

Seventh Ward, Seventh Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Esplanade street, and thence along the seid projected line
to the center of Esplanade s..eet on the left bank of said
river, and thence along the center of Esplanade street to
the center of Bayou St. John, and thence along the center
of Bayou St. John and Cut Off to the south shore of Lake

22

Pontchartrain, and thence on the projected line of the
center of said Bayou St. John to a point in the middle of
Lake Pontchartrain, and thence along the middle of Lake
Pontchartrain to the projected line of the center of Elysian
Fields street, and thence along the said projected line of the
center of Elysian Fields street to the south shore of Lake
Pontchartrain, and thence along the center of Elysian
Fields street to the left bank of the Mississippi river, and
thence to a point in the middle of the Mississippi river on
the projected line of the center of Elysian Fields street,
and thence along the center of the Mississippi river to the
point of commencement.

Eighth Ward, Eighth Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Elysian Fields street, and thence along the said projected
line to the center of Elysian Fields street on the left bank
of the said river, and thence along the center of Elysian
Fields street to the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and
thence on the projected line of the center Elysian Fields
street to a point in the middle of Lake Pontchartrain, and
thence along the middle of Lake Pontchartrain to the pro-
jected line of the Center of People’s avenue, and thence
along the said projected line of the center of People’s
avenue to the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and
thence along the center of People’s avenue to the center
of Lafayette avenue, and thence along the center of Lafay-
ette avenue to the left bank of the Mississippi river, and
thence to a point in the middle of the Mississippi river on
the projected line of the center of Lafayette avenue, and
thence along the center of the Mississippi river to the
point of commencement.

Ninth Ward, Ninth Representative District, bounded as
follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Lafayette avenue, and thence along the said projected line

23

to the center of Lafayette avenue, on the left bank of said
river, and thence along the center of Lafayette avenue to
the center of People’s avenue, and thence along the center

of People’s avenue to the south shore of Lake Pontchar-
train, and thence on the projected line of the center of
People’s avenue to a point in the middle of Lake Pont-
chartrain, aud thence along the middle of Lake Pontchar-
train to the center of the Rigolets, and thence along the
center oi the Rigolets to the Lake Borgne, and thence along
the main shore of Lake Borgne, including ail islands within
one marine league distance thereof, to ue center of Bayou
Bienvenu, and thence along the center of Bayou Bienvenu
to the Fisherman’s Canal, and thence along the center of
the Fisherman’s Canal to the line of the south side of
Florida Walk, and thence along the said line of Florida
Walk to the lower line of the United States Barracks, and
thence along the said line of the United States Barracks
to the left bank of the Mississippi river, and thence to a
point in the middle of the Mississippi river on the pro-
jected line of the said United States Barracks, and thence
along the middle of the Mississippi river to the point of
commencement.

Tenth Ward, Tenth Representative District, bounded as
follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of Fe-
licity road, and thence along the said projected line to the
center of Felicity road on the left bank of said river, and
thence along the center of Felicity road to the center of
Melpomene Canal, and thence along the center of Mel-
pomene Canal to its intersection with First street, and
thence along the center of First street to the left bank of
the Mississippi river, and thence to a point in tie middle
of the Mississippi river on the projected iine of the center
of First street, and thence along the center of the Missis-
sippi river to the point of commencement.

Eleventh Ward, Eleventh Representative, bounded as
follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of

24

the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center
of First street, and thence along the said projected line
to the center of First street on the left bank ef said river,
and thence along the center of First street to the center
of the Melpomene Tail Race, and thence along the center
of the Melpomene Tail Race to the center of Toledano
street, and thence along the center of Toledano street, to
the left bank of the Mississippi river, and thence to a point
in the middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line
of the center of Toledano street, and thence along the
center of the Mississippi river to the point of commence-
ment.

Twelfth Ward, Twelfth Representative District, bounded
as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Toledano street, and thence along the said projected line
to the center of Toledano street on the left bank of said
river, and thence along the center of Toledano street to
the center of Broad street, and thence along the center of
Broad street to the center of Napoleon avenue, and thence
along the center of Napoleon avenue to the left bank of
the Mississippi river, and thence to a point in the middle of
the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Napoleon avenue, and thence along the center of the Mis-
sissippi river to the point of commencement.

Thirteenth Ward, Thirteenth Representative District,
bounded as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the
middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line of the
center of Napoleon avenue, and thence along the said pro-
jected line to the center of Napoleon avenue on the left
bank of said river, and thence along the center of Napoleon
avenue to the center of Broad street, and thence along the
center of Broad street to the center of Peters avenue, and
thence along the center of Peters avenue to the left bank
of the Mississippi river, and thence to a point in the middle
of the Mississippi river on the projected line of the center

25

of Peters avenue, and thence along the center of the Mis-
sissippi river to the point of commencement.

Fourteenth Ward, Fourteenth Representative District,
bounded as follows—viz.: Commencing at a point in the
middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line of the
center of Peters avenue and thence along the said projec-
tive line to the center of Peters avenue on the left bank
of said river, and thence along the center of Peters avenue
to Broad street, and thence along the center of Broad street
to the center of Toledano street, and thence along the center
of Toledano street to the center of Melpomene Tail Race,
and thence along the center of Melpomene Tail Race, to the
center of Lowerline street, and thence along the center of
Lowerline street to the left bank of the Mississippi river
and thence to a point in the middle of the Mississippi river
on the projected line of the center of Lowerline street, and
thence along the center of the Mississippi river to the
point of commencement.

Sixteenth Ward, Sixteenth Representative District,
hounded as follows—viz: Commencing at a point in the
middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line of the
center of Lowerline street, and thence along the said pro-
jected line to the center of Lowerline street on the left
bank of said river, and thence along the center of Lowerline
street to the center of the Melpomene Tail Race, and thence
along the center of the Melpomene Tail Race to the center of
Carrollton avenue, and thence along the center of Carroll-
ton avenue to the left bank of the Mississippi river, and
thence to a point in the middle of the Mississippi river on
the projected line of the center of Carrollton avenue, and
thence along the center of the Mississippi river to the point
of commencement.

Seventeenth Ward, Seventeenth Representative District,
bounded as follows—viz: Commencing at a point in the
middle of the Mississippi river on the projected line of the
center of Carrollton avenue, and thence along said projected
line to the center of Carrollton avenue on the left bank of

26

said river, and thence along the center of Carrollton avenue
to the center of the New Basin Canal, and thence along the
center of the New Basin Canal to the south shore of Lake
Pontchartrain, and thence on the projected line of the cen-
ter of the New Basin Canal to a point in the middle of Lake
Pontchartrain, and thence along the middle of Lake Pont-
chartrain to the projected line of the center of the Upper-
line Canal, and thence along the said projected line of the
center of the said Upperline Canal to the south shore of
Lake Pontchartrain, and thence along the center of the
Upperline Canal and Upperline street to the left bank of the
Mississippi river, and thence to a point in the middle of the
Mississippi river on the projected line of the center of
Upperline Canal, and thence along the center of the Missis-
sippi river to the point of commencement.

Fifteenth Ward, Fifteenth Representative District,
bounded as follows—viz: All that part of the Parish of
Orleans situated on the right bank of the Mississippi river,
included within the boundaries described in the preceding
section.

The First Municipal District shall include all that part
of the Parish of Orleans forming the First, Second and
Third Wards, as hereinbefore described.

The Second Municipal District shall include all that part
of the Parish of Orleans forming the Fourth, Fifth and
Sixth Wards, as hereinbefore described.

The Third Municipal District shall include all that part
of the Parish of Orleans forming the Seventh, Eighth and
Ninth Wards, as herinbefore described.

The Fourth Municipal District shall include all that part
of the Parish of Orleans forming the Tenth and Eleventh
Wards, as hereinbefore described.

The Fifth Municipal District shall include all that part
of the Parish of Orleans situated on the right bank of the
Mississippi river included within the boundaries hereinbe-

fore described.

27
Exhibit “D”

ORDINANCE
(As Amended)

City or New ORLEANS
City Hall, January 15, 1972
Calendar No. 5194
No. 4796 Mayor Counci Series
By: CouncttmMan Moreau

Aw Orprnance to redistrict the City of New Orleans
pursuant to Section 3-103 (3) of the Home Rule Charter of
the City of New Orleans.

Section 1. Tue Councit or tHe City or New Orueaxs
Heresy Orpains, That effective on the first Monday in
April, 1974, Section 3-103 (1) of the Home Rule Charter
of the City of New Orleans be amended to read as follows:

(a) District A shall be composed of: Ward 16, Ward
17; Ward 14 less precincts 1, 2, and 3; and Ward 15
less precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

(b) District B shall be composed of: Ward 1; Ward
10; Ward 11; Ward 12; Ward 13; Ward 14, precincts
1, 2, and 3; and Ward 15, precincts 3, 4, 7, and 8.

(ec) District C shall be composed of: Ward 2; Ward 3;
Ward 4; Ward 5; Ward 6; Ward 7, precincts 12, 13,
15, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 274A; Ward 15, precincts 1, 2,
d, and 6.

(d) District D shall be composed of: Ward 8; Ward 7
less precincts 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, and 27A;
and Ward 9, precincts 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,
25, and 25A.

(e) District E shall be composed of: Ward 9 less pre-
cinets 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 25A.

28

Section 2. That precincts referred to in Section 1 shall
mean those precincts existing at the date of final passage
of this ordinance; however, nothing herein shall be con-
strued as limiting the power of the City government of
New Orleans to adjust precinct boundaries in accordance
with L.R.S. 18:586 provided that the geographical bound-
aries of the Councilmanic Districts described in Section 1
are maintained.

Section 3. That candidates for the Offices of Council-
man-at-large and Councilmen for each of the Districts,
as hereinabove fixed and established, who are to be voted
on in the General Municipal Election to be held on the
Tuesday following the first Monday of March, 1974, shall
be eligible to qualify as such with the respective political
party committees charged with the duty of calling and
conducting primary elections on such dates as may be fixed
by said committees, and be voted on in such party primary
elections, in accordance with the provisions of the election
laws of the State.

Avoptrep By tHe Councit or THE City or New OrLEANS
Marcu 2, 1972

Joseru V. Di Rosa
Presipent or Tue Covunci.

Delivered to the Mayor on March 2, 1972
Approved: March 3, 1972
Moon LanpriEv
Mayor
Returned by the Mayor on March 3, 1972 at 3:30 P.M.

Rocer L. Sarrat
CLERK or CouNcIL
mlm

29
Exhibit “E”

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, bD.c. 20530

Jan. 15, 1973

Mr. Ernest L. Salatich
Assistant City Attorney
Department of Law

Room 2W23

City of New Orleans

City Hall

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Dear Mr. Salatich:

This is in reference to your submission to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 of City Council Ordinance 4796 M.C.S. which re-
apportioned the councilmanie districts of the City of New
Orleans. This submission was received by this Depart-
ment on November 15, 1972.

We have given careful consideration to the submitted
changes and the supporting information as well as data
compiled by the Bureau of the Census and information
and comments from interested parties. Our analysis shows
that the district boundary lines in the submitted plan are
drawn in a manner which appears to dilute black voting
strength by combining a number of black voters with a
larger number of white voters in each of the five districts.
Moreover, it does not appear that the district lines are
drawn as they are because of any compelling governmental
need and they do not reject numeric population configu-
rations or considerations of district compactness or regu-
larity of shape. Under these circumstances we cannot con-
clude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that this
plan of reapportionment for the New Orleans Council will
not have a racially discriminatory effect on voting. Con-

30

sequently, on behalf of the Attorney General I must inter-
pose an objection.

We have reached this conclusion reluctantly because we
fully understand the complexities facing the city in design-
ing a reapportionment plan to satisfy the needs of the
city and its citizens and, simultaneously, to comply with
the mandates of the federal Constitution and laws. We are
persuaded, however, that the Voting Rights Act compels
this result.

Of course, Section 5 permits you to seek a declaratory
judgment from the District Court for the Distriet of
Columbia that this plan neither has the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote
on account of race. Until such a judgment is rendered by
that Court, however, the legal effect of the objection of the
Attorney General is to render unenforceable this reappor-
tionment plan.

In this connection, [ wish to bring to your attention our
receipt on January 12, 1973, of your City Couneil Ordi-
nance 5026 M.C.S. which calls for a referendum election
on March 20, 1973, on the question of increasing the size
of the City Council from seven to nine members. We will
review that submission and let you know the Attorney
General’s determination as soon as possible. However, I
also wish to point out that should the increase in the size
of the council be approved at the referendum, any dis-
tricting plan drawn up as a result must also meet the clear-
ance requirements of Section 5.

Sincerely,

/3/ Davin L. Norman
David L. Norman
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

31

Exhibit “F”
Crty or New ORLEANS

CITY HALL, DECEMBER 7, 1972
CALENDAR NO. 5475
No. 5154 Mayor Councit Serres
By: CouncitMan Moreau

An Orprnance to amend and reordain Ordinance No.
4796 M.C.S., as amended, adopted March 2, 1972, redist-
tricting the City of New Orleans pursuant to Section 3-103
(3) of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans.

Section 1. Tue Councit or tae Crry or New ORLEANS
Heresy Orparns, that Ordinance No. 4796 M.C.S., as amend-
ed, be amended and reordained, and that effective on the
first Monday in April, 1974, Section 3-103 (1) of the Home
Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans be amended to
read as follows:

District A shall be composed of Ward 13; Ward 14;
Ward 16; Ward 17; Ward 3, precincts 17, 18, 19, 20;
and Ward 4, precincts 11, 12, 15, 16, 16A, 19, 20, 20A,
21, 21A, 22, and 23.

District B shall be composed of Ward 1; Ward 2; Ward
10; Ward 11; Ward 12; and Ward 3, less precincts
17, 18, 19, and 20.

District C shall be composed of Ward 5; Ward 6; Ward
15; Ward 4, less precincts 11, 12, 15, 16, 16A, 19, 20,
20A, 21, 21A, 22, and 23; and Ward 7, precincts 12,
13, 15, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, and 27A

District D shall be composed of Ward 8; Ward 7, less
precinets 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, and 27A; and
Ward 9, precinets 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25,
and 25A

District E shall be composed of Ward 9, less precincts
12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 25A.

32

Section 2. That precincts referred to in Section 1 shall
mean those precincts existing at the date of final passage
of this ordimance; however, nothing herein shall be con-
strued as limiting the power of the City government of
New Orleans to adjust precinct boundaries in accordance
with L.R.S. 18:586 provided that the geographical bound-
aries of the Councilmanic Districts described in Section 1
are maintained.

Section 3. That candidates for the Offices of Council-
man-at-Large and Councilmen for each of the Districts, as
hereinabove fixed and established, who are to be voted on
in the General Municipal Election to be held on the Tues-
day following the first Monday of March, 1974, shall be
eligible to qualify as such with the respective political
party committees charged with the duty of calling and
conducting primary elections on such dates as may be fixed
by said committes, and be voted on such party primary
elections, in accordance with the provisions of the election
laws of the State.

AportTEep BY THE CouNcIL or THE City or New ORLEANS
May 3, 1973

Joserpu V. Dit Rosa
PresipENt or CouNcIL

Delivered to the Mayor on May 3, 1973

"RRRBGUEES 6c cccccccccesvcseccecscces
PIGS ck cccccccccccecdcsccsseccs
Mayor

Returned by the Mayor May 14, at 2:15 P.M.

Joserpn C, Pererson,
CLERK or CoUNCIL

*NOTE: This ordinance was returned by the Mayor on May
14, 1973, at 2:15 P.M., and the same was neither approved nor dis-
approved by the Mayor. Therefore, said ordinance became effec-
tive at 12:00 o'clock Noon on May 13, 1973, in accordance with
Section 3-113 (2) of the City Charter.

Exhibit “G”
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.c. 20530

July 9, 1973
Mr. Ernest L. Salatich
Assistant City Attorney
Department of Law
Room 2W23
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Dear Mr. Salatich:

This is in reference to your submission to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 of City Council Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. which reap-
portioned the councilmanic districts of the City of New
Orleans. This submission was received by this Department
on May 10, 1973.

We have given careful consideration to the submitted
changes and the supporting information as well as data com-
plied by the Bureau of the Census and information and
comments from interested parties. In addition we have
utilized the information and data which you had previously
provided this office in connection with our consideration of
Ordinance 4796 M.C.S., pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.

Our analysis shows that the boundary lines prescribed
by Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. appear to effect a dilution of
black voting strength in the same manner as did the
boundary lines prescribed in Ordinance 4796 M.C.S. to which
an objection was interposed on behalf of the Attorney Gen-
eral on January 15, 1973. Under these circumstances we
cannot conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, that this plan of reapportionment for the New
Orleans City Council will not have a racially discriminatory
effect on voting. Consequently, on behalf of the Attorney

34

General I must interpose an objection to the reapportion-
ment plan outlined in Ordinance 5154 M.C.S.

While we recognize that there are significant differences
between the reapportionment plans proposed in Ordinance
numbers 4796 and 5154 especially in regard to the number
of non-contiguous districts and the population by race of
proposed District B, Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. nevertheless
combines a number of black voters with a larger number of
white voters in four of the five districts. Moreover, the
district lines in the instant submission do not appear to
have been based on any compelling governmental need or
to reflect numeric population configurations or considera-
tions of district compactness or regularity of shape.

Our evaluation of Ordinance numbers 4796 and 5154 indi-
cates that the objectionable dilution of black voting strength
in both redistricting plans is primarily attributable to the
vertical shape of the submitted districts. Because the pre-
dominantly black neighborhoods in the city are located gen-
erally in an east to west progression, the vertical districts
in the submitted plans divided the black neighborhoods and
combined them with white areas in the north and the south
of the city resulting in districts with more white than black
voters.

Although the shape of the submitted districts may have
been in part based upon the shape of the seventeen wards
in New Orleans, the wards do not of themselves define
official boundaries bearing upon the election of or repre-
sentation by city council members, and adherence to the
traditional shape of the wards may not serve to justify the
resulting prohibited dilution of black voting strength under
Section 5.

We do not mean by this analysis to imply that other
reapportionment plans based upon vertical] districts will
necessarily divide the black neighborhoods in the city to
the degree found objectionable here. We have determined,
however, that a dilutive result similar to that found in the

35

submitted plan is difficult to avoid when such districts are
utilized to the extent found in the submitted plan, and that
the extent to which such districts were utilized is not neces-
sary to achieve a successful reapportionment of the city’s
population.

If you desire any further explanation of the basis for
the objection herein, or believe that such further explana-
tion would be helpful in fashioning a redistricting plan
which avoids the objectionable features of the submitted
plan, please do not hesitate to contact us. Of course, See-
tion 5 permits you to seek a declaratory judgment from the
District Court for the District of Columbia that this plan
neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race. Until
such a judgment is rendered by that Court, however, the
legal effect of the objection of the Attorney General is to
render unenforceable this reapportionment plan.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. Stvantey Porrincer
J. Stanley Pottinger
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[Caption Omitted }
Civil Action No. 1495-73
Answer

Comes now the defendant, United States of America, by
and through its attorneys, and answers as follows:

1. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 1 of the Complaint.

2. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 2 of the Complaint.

36

3. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 3 of the Complaint.

4. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 4 of the Complaint.

5. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 5 of the Complaint.

6. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 6 of the Complaint.

7. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 7 of the Complaint.

8. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 8 of the Complaint.

9. The United States admits the aliegations of para-
graph 9 of the Complaint.

10. The United States denies the allegations of para-
graph 10 of the Complaint wherein it is alleged that
Ordinance No, 4796 Mayor Council Series was submitted to
the Attorney General of the United States on May 4, 1972.
Answering further the United States admits that Ordinance
No. 4796 Mayor Council Series was submitted, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
as amended, to the Attorney General of the United States.

11. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 11 of the Complaint.

12. The United States denies the allegations of para-
graph 12 of the Complaint.

13. The United States admits the allegations of the first
and third sentences of paragraph 13 of the Complaint inso-
far as such allegations are intended to refer to Ordinance
No. 5154 Mayor Council Series rather than to alleged Ordi-
nance No. 5154 Municipal Council Series. The United
States denies the allegations of the second sentence of para-
graph 13 of the Complaint wherein it is alleged that Ordi-

37

nance No. 5154 was submitted to the Attorney General on
May 9, 1973. The United States admits that Ordinance No.
5154 was submitted, pursuant to the provisions of Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, to the
Attorney General of the United States.

14. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 14 of the Complaint.

15. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 15 of the Complaint.

16. The United States denies the allegations of para-
graph 16 of the Complaint concerning the population, by
race, of each of the districts for the first plan. The United
States admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Com-
plaint concerning the population, by race, of each of the
districts for the second plan. The United States is without
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Com-
plaint concerning the percentage of black registered voters
as of June, 1973.

17. The United States is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allega-
tions of paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

i8. The United States admits the allegations of para-
graph 18 of the Complaint.

19. The United States denies the allegations of the
first sentence of paragraph 19 of the Complaint. The
United States admits that Ordinance No. 4796 M.C.S. was
passed, by a vote of 6-1, by the Council of the City of New
Orleans. The United States admits that after Ordinance
No. 4796 M.C.S. was submitted to the Attorney General
of the United States pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended, an objection was inter-
posed to the implementation of that ordinance by an Assist-
ant Attorney General on behalf of the Attorney General.
The United States further admits that to the best of its

38

knowledge and belief no further action was taken by the
City Council in connection with Ordinance No. 4796 M.C.S.

20. The United States admits that in August 1972 the
City Council passed Ordinances Nos. 4922 M.C.S. and 4923
M.C.S.. The United States admits that Ordinance Nos. 4922
and 4923 were proposals to amend the city charter via
referenda elections to increase the size of the City Council
from 7 to 9 members or from 7 to 11 members. The United
States further admits that the Mayor of the City of New
Orleans thereafter vetoed Ordinance No. 4922 and that the
veto was not overridden by the City Council.

21. The United States denies the allegations of para-
graph 21 of the Complaint wherein it is alleged that ‘‘ pro-
posals’’ were submitted to the electorate. The United
States is without knowledge or information sufiicient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of para-
graps 21 of the Complaint wherein it is alleged that ‘‘. . .
after much campaigning in support of the proposal by
various groups and organizations, the proposed expansion
of the council to eleven members failed by a very substan-
tial margin of voters.’’ Answering further the United
States admits that a majority of the ballots cast in the
election on Ordinance No. 4923 M.C.S. did not favor the
adoption of the City Charter amendment set out there’©.

22. The United States is without knowledge or inror-
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of that portion of the first sentence of para-
graph 22 of the Complaint down to, and including, the
word ‘‘immediately’’ set out in line 4 of paragraph 22. The
United States admits the allegations of that portion of the
first sentence of paragraph 22 of the Complaint from, and
including, the words ‘‘Councilman Sapir’’ set out in line
4 of paragraph 22. The United States is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations of the third sentence of paragraph 22 of the
Complaint. The United States admits the allegations of the

39

second and fourth sentences of paragraph 22 of the Com-
plaint.

23. The United States is without knowledge or infor-
maiien sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alle-
gations oi paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

24. The "United States is without knowledge or infor-
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of the first and second sentences of paragraph
24 of the Complaint. The United States admits that Dis-
tricts A and B of Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. were identical to
proposals for two districts in a redistricting plan proposed
to the City Council by the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. |

25. The United States is without knowledge or infor-
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alle-
gations of that portion of the first sentence of paragraph 25
of the Complaint to, and including, the word ‘‘course’’ set
out in line 3 of paragraph 25. The United States admits
the remaining allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

26. The United States admits the allegations of the
first sentence of paragraph 26 of the Complaint. The
United States denies the allegations of the second sentence
of paragraph 26 of the Complaint. Answering further the
United States admits that pursuant to the provisions of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, an
objection was interposed to the implementation of Ordi-
nance No. 5154 M.C.S. by an Assistant Attorney General
on behalf of the Attorney General.

27. The United States is without information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of para-
graph 27 of the Complaint wherein it is alleged that
‘(TP ]laintiffs believe that ...’’. Amswering further the
United States denies that Ordinance No. 5154 M.C.S. is a
fair plan of redistricting which does not have the purpose,

40

and will not have the effect, of denying or abridging the

right to vote on account of race or color.

Wuenrerore, the United States prays that the Court deny

the relief requested by plaintiffs.

J. Stantey Porrrncer
Assistant Attorney General

/8/ M. Karu Suurtutrr
GeraLp W. Jonzs
M. Karu Suvurtuire
NATHANIEL F'R1ENDs
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
739-3849

[Certificate of Service Omitted]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 1495-73
[Caption Omitted]

Motion To Intervene as Defendants

Johnny Jackson, Jr., Theodore Marchand, Larry Jones,
James Singleton, Melvin Bush, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, move for leave to intervene
as defendants in order to assert the defenses set forth in
their proposed answer, a copy of which is attached hereto
on the following grounds:

1. This is an action brought by six of the seven members
of the Council of the City of New Orleans pursuant to the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439; 42 U.S.C. § 1973¢
praying for a declaratory judgment that Ordinance No.

41

5154 of the City of New Orleans that redistricted the city
as required by Article ITI, Section 3-103 of the Charter of
the City of New Orleans does not ‘‘. . . have the purpose
and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color... .’’ Petitioners
are all black, adult citizens of the United States and of
the State of Louisiana, and are registered voters of the
Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Petitioner Johnny Jackson, Jr. resides at 2814 Clouet
Street and is registered to vote in Councilmanic District
E. Petitioner Theodore Marchand resides at 2427 Caffin
Avenue and is registered to vote in Councilmanic District
A. Petitioner Larry Jones resides at 3919 Harmony Street
and is registered to vote in Councilmanie District D.
Petitioner James Singleton resides at 1931 Fourth Street
and is registered to vote in Councilmanic District B. Peti-
tioner Melvin Bush resides at 1430 Hermosa Street and is
registered to vote in Councilmaniec District A. Petitioners
move to intervene on behalf of themselves and all black
registered voters of the City of New Orleans whose relative
voting power will be diluted unless city council elections
are conducted under a non-discriminatory plan of redis-
tricting.

2. In addition to being black registered votes of the
City of New Orleans, petitioners are the plaintiffs in
Jackson, et al v. The Council of the City of New Orleans,
et al., Civil Action No. 73-1862, filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, on July 12,
1973, ' two days after the objections to Ordinance No. 5154
were made, which includes in its prayer for relief a request
that a master be appointed to redistrict the city in a non-
discriminatory manner prior to the election scheduled for
the fall of this year. The requested master was appointed
on August 4 ,1973.

— ——

1 See Exhibit A.

42

3. Petitioners have an interest in the subject of this
action both as black registered voters for whom the pro-
tections of Section 5 of the voting rights act were pro-
mulgated and as plaintiffs in Jackson v. Council of the
City of New Orleans which, because of the immediacy of
the councilmanie elections, they may as a practical matter
be impaired or impeded from protecting as a result of the
disposition of this action.

4. Plaintiffs have made ailegations relating to the history
of Ordinance No. 5154 and the general history of council-
manic districting practices in the City of New Orleans.
Petitioners have a knowledge and understanding of said
history superior to any of the named defendants, there-
fore their interests cannot be adequately represented unless
they are permitted to intervene as defendants.

Respectfully submitted

Srantey A. Hawprn, Jr.
Kipp, Karz & Hauprn
906 Carondelet Building
226 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
(504) 581-2688

Cyartes E. Corton
Corton, Jones & FazanpeE

JACK GREENBERG

James M, Nasait, IIT
Eric SCHNAPPER

Cuaries EK. WruraMs, III

Wiey Branton
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/3/ James M. Nasnrit, III
James M. Nabrit, ITT

Dated: August 8, 1973.

43

Exhibit “A”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Civil Action No. 73-1862
Ciass ActTIoNn

Section D

Jounny Jackson, Jr., THropore Marcnanp, Larry Jones,
James Srncieton, Metvin Bus, on behalf of them-
selves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

versus

THe Counci, or tHe Crry or New Ortezans; Josern V.
DiRosa, James A. Moreau, Puivie C. Craccio, Jonn D.
Lambert, Jr., CLarence O, Dupuy, Jr., Epp L. Sarr,
and Peter H. Beer, members of the Council of the City
of New Orleans; Tue Crry or New Or.eans; and
Maurice Lanprrev, in his official capacity as Mayor of
the City of New Orleans, Defendants.

Complaint
I. JuRIspICTION

1, This is a class action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 to redress violations of rights secured to plaintiffs
by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the councilmanie
districting arrangement provided by Section 3-103(1) of
the Charter of the City of New Orleans violates their rights
secured by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States and injunctive relief
prohibiting further implementation of said section and
requiring that elections for the Council of the City of
New Orleans be conducted under a constitutionally suf-
ficient non-discriminatory redistricting plan to be devised
by the Court. Plaintiffs further seek an injunction pro-
hibiting members of the Council of the City of New Orleans
from drawing their salaries due to their failure to effect a
good faith redistricting in compliance with the United

44

States Constitution and the New Orleans City Charter.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. Section
1343(3) and (4).

Il. Parties

2. Plaintiffs are all black, adult citizens of the United
States and of the State of Louisiana, and are registered
voters of the Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans,
Louisiana. Plaintiff Johnny Jackson, Jr. resides at 2814
Clouet Street and is registered to vote in Councilmanic
District E. Plaintiff Theodore Marchand resides at 2427
Chaffin Avenue and is registered to vote in Councilmanie
District A. Plaintiff Larry Jones resides at 3919 Harmony
Street and is registered to vote in Councilmanic District
D. Plaintiff James Singleton resides at 1931 Fourth
Street and is registered to vote in Councilmanie District
B. Plaintiff Melvin Bush resides at 1430 Hermosa Street
and is registered to vote in Councilmanie District A.

3. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf
of the class of all registered voters and subclass of black
registered voters of the City of New Orleans whose relative
voting power will be diluted unless the forthcoming city
council elections are conducted under a constitutionally
sufficient non-discriminatory plan of redistricting. The
members of the class and subclass are so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. There are
questions of law or fact common to the claims of the class
and subclass, the claims of the respective parties are
typical of the claims of the respective class and subclass,
and the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class and subclass.

4. Defendant the Council of the City of New Orleans
(hereinafter the ‘‘city council’’) is the general legislative
body of the city of New Orleans (hereinafter the ‘‘city
charter’’) with power and duty of reapportioning itself.
Defendants Joseph V. DiRosa, James A. Moreau, Philip C.
Ciaccio, John D. Lambert, Jr., Clarence O. Dupuy, Jr.,

45

Eddie L. Sapir, and Peter H. Beer are the members of
the city council.

9. Defendant the City of New Orleans exists pursuant to
Article IV, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of
Louisiana and under a Home Rule Charter adopted by
referendum election and which went into effect in May of
1954. Defendant Maurice Landrieu is the Mayor and chief
executive officer of the City of New Orleans.

Ill. Svrarement

6. The existing districting arrangement of the city
council pursuant to Section 3-103(1) is grossly mal-
apportioned having wide population variances between
districts resulting in dilution of voting strength of persons
in under-represented districts. According to the 1970
census, each councilmanie district should ideally represent
118,694 persons, but under said section the councilmanic
districts according to the 1970 census have the following
populations and deviations from the ideal:

District A—134,613; +13.41%
District B—108,769; — 8.36%
District C—100,811; —15.06%
District D—114,367; — 3.64%
District E—134,911; +13.66%.

7. The city council has attempted on two occasions to
effect racially discriminatory plans of redistricting. On
each occasion the Attorney General of the United States.
Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
invalidated the plan by entering an objection grounded on
the fact that the plans would have the purpose and effect
of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race.

8. The first plan, city council Ordinance 4796 M.C.S.
was objected to by the Attorney General on January 15,
1973, who stated correctly in his letter of objection that:

Our analysis shows that the district boundary lines in
the submitted plan are drawn in a manner which

46

appears to dilute black voting strength by combining a
number of black voters with a larger number of white
voters in each of the five districts. Moreover, it does
not appear that the district lines are drawn as they
are because of any compelling governmental need
and they do not reflect numerie population configura-
tions of district compactness or regularity of shape.

9. City council Ordinance 4796 M.S.C. was not a good
faith effort to redistrict in accordance with constitutional
guidelines and the city charter, but was, as characterized
by the March 4, 1972 New Orleans States-Item editorial,
a ‘‘reapportionment joke’’.

10. In spite of the clear mandate from the Attorney
General that racially discriminatory redistricting would
be unacceptable under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, the second plan of the city council, city council
Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. incorporated the same type of
defects which had prompted the Attorney General to
object to the first plan.

11. Accordingly on July 9, 1973 the Attorney General
entered his objection to city council Ordinance 5154 M.C.S.
stating correctly in his letter of objection that:

Our analysis shows that the boundary lines pre-
scribed by Ordinance 5154, M.C.S. appear to effect a
dilution of black voting strength in the same manner
as did the boundary lines preseribed in Ordinance
4796, M.C.S., to which an objection was interposed on
behalf of the Attorney General on January 15, 1973.

While we recognize that there are significant dif-
ferences between the reapportionment plans proposed
in Ordinance Numbers 4796 and 5154, especially to the
noncontiguous districts and the population by race
of proposed District B, Ordinance 5154, M. think if the
Court is going to consider delaying part of the election
process, they should delay all of it. That is, there is no
reason why the Court couldn’t allow the other municipal
elections to go under way at the regularly scheduled time
and move back not only the qualifying period but also
the elections for City Councilmen, so that [32] the class
that we represent will have an equal opportunity to present
their campaign to the voters as do the incumbents who
are well-known by virtue of their ineumbency.

Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, thank you very much. As
I think is well attested to by what has happened up to
the present time, the Court is expending every effort to
accommodate the exigencies of time associated with the
New Orleans situation. The matter was raised with counsel
this morning because, quite obviously, the question is just
how much maybe possible, and we felt some enlightenment
might be helpful to us at this time. We will continue to do
everything that we can to expedite the resolution of this
litigation.

If it becomes apparent to the Court that it cannot be
done by the end of this month—and the possibility of that,
of course, is quite great—in all probability we will be dis-
cussing details with counsel again at a later time.

I will also say for the information of counsel and the
parties that during the recess period we succeeded in clear-
ing out today and tomorrow for the purposes of the evi-
dentiary presentations based upon the estimate of counsel
that it could be done within this space of time. It is the
hope of the Court that it can be done within this space
of time, because the members of the Court have dreadful
problems if it becomes necessary to extend this trial be-
yond tomorrow.

We will proceed then with the taking of evidence, unless
[33] there is some other preliminary matter.

Do counsel desire the rule on witnesses?

79

Mr. Stoner: We do not.

Mr. Shurtliff: We do not, Your Honor.

Judge Robinson: Mr. Halpin?

Mr. Halpin: No.

Judge Robinson: Do you desire to make opening state-
ments? We are fairly familiar with the case and so far
as the Court is concerned, they may be dispensed with
unless you gentlemen want to make them.

Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I would prefer a short open-
ing statement.

Judge Robinson: Very well. All right, Mr. Stoner, you
may proceed.

Mr. Stoner: I will assure the Court I will keep it as
short as possible.

OPENING STATEMENT BY Mr. Stoner.

Mr. Stoner: The case before the Court is an action

brought under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
as it is commonly referred to. In this case the Council of
the City of New Orleans, acting for and on behalf of the
City of New Orleans, has brought an action to declare
the second plan which it has adopted of redistricting a valid
plan for the redistricting of the City of New Orleans for
purposes of the election of the Council of the City of
New Orleans.
[34] We have present with us in the courtroom five of
the six plaintiffs, all of whom are members of the City
Council, and I should like to just briefly introduce them
to the Court at this time. Mr. Peter H. Beer, Mr. Philip
Ciaccio, Mr. Joseph DiRosa, Mr. John Lambert, and Mr.
James A. Moreau.

I might say that Mr. DiRosa and Mr. Moreau are the
two councilmen who have been elected at large. The other
three persons are representatives of districts in the City
of New Orleans.

Under the Charter of the City of New Orleans, it is
mandatory that the City Council redistrict itself every 10

80

years. This is a Charter provision that was adopted in
1954 and has been in existence since. It requires the City
Council to redistrict itself following each decennial census
of the United States Census Bureau.

Judge Robinson: The Charter itself is a creature of the
citizens of New Orleans, or does the legislature or any
other political subdivision of the State of Louisiana play
a part in that? Somehow I though—I understood that th’
was a Charter framed by the citizens of New Orleans for
the citizens of New Orleans. Do I have the right impression?

Mr. Arata: That’s right, but it is also protected by our
constitution.

Judge Robinson: Legislative approval or executive ap-
proval is not necessary to any amendments of the Charter?
[35] Mr. Arata: For any amendment of the Charter we
need a vote of all the people.

Judge Robinson: But you do not have to go beyond the
citizenry of the City of New Orleans’?

Mr. Arata: That’s correct.

Judge Robinson: Very well. Thank you.

Mr. Stoner: Now, the Charter itself, to state again, makes
it mandatory that the Council redistrict itself every 10
years. This is founded in purpose, namely, that as popula-
tion changes occur in the City, the districts should be drawn
so as to reflect the changes in population trends in the
various districts of the City.

Following the submission of the 1970 census information,
the City Council adopted a plan to redistrict the City.
There was a great political feeling in the City that the
size of the City Council should be increased. So, the City
Council adopted a proposal to increase the number of
representatives on the City Council. I shall not go through
all the details but will point out to the Court’s attention
that the first proposal that was submitted to the voters
called for the increase of the size of the City Council from
its seven-man membership to 11. This was submitted to the
voters and an election was held on November 7, 1972, and
that proposal was defeated by the electorate.

81

Following that, another proposal to increase the size
[36] of the City Council was adopted by the City Council
and submitted to the electorate. A special election was held
on March 20, 1973, at which time that proposal was pre-
sented to the voters. This proposal called for an increase
of the City Council from its present seven members to a
nine-member council. Again the electorate defeated this
proposal.

So, the issue before this Court is the redistricting of a
seven-member City Council as provided in the Charter of
the City and as affirmed—apparently as affirmed by the
voters in two elections since the 1970 decennial census in-
formation has become available.

Of the seven members of the Council, two run at large;
five run in districts. The districting of those five districts
is the issue which this Court must address.

Now, I have displayed here several maps. The large
map—and I might say to the Court that these maps, it has
been agreed between counsel that they will be stipulated
as being accurate and may be admitted into evidence, and
I will offer them in evidence at a later time.

But the large map portrays the City of New Orleans
and portrays the distribution of the white and the black
population. Each orange dot represents 100 black popula-
tion.

The information from which this map has been prepared
is based on the 1970 decennial population information.

Now, I should like to point out on this map several
[37] geographic peculiarities of the City of New Orleans
so that all of us might become familiar with the geography
and some of the natural boundaries.

I will point out first the line between Jefferson Parish
and Orleans Parish. This is a line separating the City
of New Orleans from Jefferson Parish. So, we are involved
only with the area to the right of that line.

We have here the natural geographic boundary, the
Mississippi River, which you will note curves quite mark-
edly through the City and goes on. We have here the

82

natural boundary of Lake Pontchartrain in the boundary,
which follows this line and goes on. I understand that this
airport which you see portrayed here is in fact built out
into the lake, and the natural boundary of the lake is on
the lower side of the airport as portrayed there.

Now, in addition to this, the map does not show the entire
City because there is a leg of land that extends out here
along Lake Pontchartrain and along the intereoastal water-
way, which is a body of water, and I believe the line of
that is roughly this. There is a leg of land that extends
out some distance between Lake Pontchartrain and the
intercoastal waterway. I am informed that this is a very
sparsely populated area. I mean by that the extended por-
tion of the City, the leg of the City is sparsely populated,
and indeed, as you can see from the map itself, even the
center part of this area is [38] very sparsely populated.
This area of the City is known as New Orleans East or
Kast New Orleans, and I mean by that this City here.

This area of the City here which borders the lake is
known as the Lake area.

There is another very important geographic distinction
that I would like to call to the Court’s attention, and that
is the area which is across the river, across the Mississippi
River from the downtown area of the City of New Orleans.
It is a part of the City and it is known as Algiers. This
area here across the Mississippi River from this area ex-
tends along the river and is part of the City of New Orleans.

This again here is the line dividing Orleans Parish from
St. Bernard Parish, so that the City line is this black line.
This is the Mississippi River. This is the area of Algiers,
which is part of the City of New Orleans that is across
the river from the rest of the City.

Judge Robinson: Would you mind pointing out where
the one bridge between Algiers and downtown New Orleans
is?

Mr. Stoner: Yes, Your Honor. The bridge, I am informed,
is about in this area, approximately here. It is on sort of
the edge of Algiers.

83

Judge Robinson: I gather that that is not the only bridge
but it is the only bridge between Algiers and downtown;
is that correct?

[39] Mr. Stoner: You are right, Your Honor. In fact, it
is the only bridge in the City of New Orleans. There is a
bridge

Judge Robinson: There is no other bridge between Al-
giers and New Orleans, only the one bridge?

Mr. Stoner: And the main downtown City? Yes, Your
Honor, that’s right.

Judge Robinson: No, no, not downtown. Any other place
in New Orleans?

Mr. Stoner: Between Algiers and

Judge Robinson: Any part of New Orleans.

Mr. Stoner: There is only one bridge.

Judge Robinson: Thank you.

Mr. Stoner: There is only one bridge. There is a bridge
across the Mississippi considerably up river in Jefferson
Parish, but the only bridge between Algiers and the rest
of New Orleans is about here. It is one bridge and one
bridge only.

Judge Robinson: Now, Algiers at the present time, that
is, under the plan under consideration, is now part of the
Third District; right?

Mr. Stoner: Under the plan as submitted, and I might—-—

Judge Robinson: District C, as I recall.

Mr. Stoner: I might refer to this map
[40] Judge Robinson: Yes, I see.

Mr. Stoner: —which is Exhibit H to the Complaint. Un-
der that plan, the Algiers area is in District C, and is
included in the district directly across the river from it.

Judge Robinson: Is that one district also, in District C?

Mr. Stoner: The one bridge?

Judge Robinson: The one bridge.

Mr. Stoner: It is very close to the line, I believe, yes.
I see the gentlemen nodding their head. I believe the bridge
is very close to the line between Algiers and District C.

84

There is also a ferry, I understand, approximately in
the same position as the bridge that commonly runs be-
tween Algiers and this area of the City.

It might be more descriptive on this map to say the other
bridge is considerably up river from the bridge which
presently exists here to Algiers.

Now, as I said, having oriented ourselves geographically,
I would like to point out the natural boundaries of the
City again, namely, the Lake, the Mississippi River itself,
the intercoastal waterway here, the leg of the City extend-
ing out there know as East New Orleans, and Algiers which
is in this area.

The evidence will show that Algiers is a growing area
and that there has been great controversy and great pres-
sure for [41] another bridge across the river.

I would like at this time to interject and say that the
present plan of districting in the City of New Orleans,
that is, the plan that has been in existence since 1961,
includes Algiers as part of District A, which is this district
here, and there has been a great controversy between,
the evidence will show, the population of Algiers and the
population of District A as to the location of a bridge. In
fact, this matter has not been resolved through years of
controversy.

As I stated earlier, this map portrays the distribution of
the black and the white population of the City of New
Orleans, .the orange being the black and the green repre-
senting white voters, each dot representing 100 population
in each case. You will note that the black population is
scattered throughout the City and, indeed, in many respects
it would appear that the City is an integrated city. There
is black population in East New Orleans, along Lake Pont-
chartrain Park Area, in these areas. I believe that’s Ward
7. There is black population out here in 17 interspersed
with considerable white population. There is a concentra-
tion of black population in this area, which I believe on
this exhibit portrays itself as proposed council District B.

85

There is also considerable black population in this area

of the City and in this area and across, indeed, in Algiers
there is considerable black population.
[42] So that the population of the City is not concentrated
in a core area or in a, if | may use the phrase, ghetto
area, but rather is it spread out throughout many areas of
the City and indeed practically every area of the City, with
the possible exception of this leg of land between the City
Park and Lake Pontchartrain here; that doesn’t appear
to have any black population. But otherwise, the black
population is indeed spread throughout the City.

Now, I would call to the Court’s attention what has been
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, which is an exhibit too to
the Complaint. It is Exhibit H. I believe that the Court
has copies of this exhibit.

This is a map of the City which portrays the plan that
is before the Court for consideration, and you will see
the five councilmanie districts, the City divided into five
councilmanie districts: District A, District B, District C,
which is on both sides of the City Park and runs to the
lake and extends over to include the entire Algiers area.

You will see District D as being an area here where I
am pointing to, and District E including all of Kast New
Orleans and portrayed on this map apparently in this area.

These are the five councilmanie districts that the City
Charter calls for as portrayed by the present plan which
is before the Court for consideration.

Now, the evidence will show that prior plans that had
[43] been submitted, prior public controversy, prior public
debate had centered around Algiers. The people of Algiers
felt that they had a common interest with one another and
therefore should, as a group, be located, be blocked in one
councilmanie district. The first plan which had been ap-
proved had cut Algiers into three districts, and there was
great objection to the cutting of that area of the City into
three councilmanic districts.

There had been also proposed plans, I believe, that would
cut Algiers in two, but the City Council felt that this being

86

an overriding issue, namely, the bridge issue, the trans-
portation issue, and the transportation from Algiers to
the rest of the City being a vital issue, it was important
that Algiers as a body, the people of Algiers as a body
should be included in one councilmanie district rather than
split among other councilmanic districts.

Now, the other map, which is underneath—lI will ask the
Court’s indulgence just a moment here—is a map that has
been stipulated to by the parties, and it has been prepared
from current voter registration lists as of June of 1973.
In other words, the information on this map is only two
months old. It is current information.

In this map each brown dot represe 3s 50 black regis-

tered voters. Each green dot represents 50 white registered
voters.
[44] I would caii to the Court’s attention again the dis-
persal of the voters throughout the City of New Orleans
into the various councilmanic districts as proposed in the
plan. Again, we do not have a case of the voters all being
bunched but rather geographically the registered voters,
just as in the population case, are extended throughout the
City.

I believe the evidence will also show that among the
black population there is a large percentage of young
people, and [ mean by that people under 18 years of age.
This would tend to explain what might appear to be a
little disparagy between the population map and the voter
registration map. So that while this map represents popu-
lation, many of the people included in these figures would
be under 18 years of age and thus not eligible to vote.

On the other hand, this map represents those who are
18 years of age and in fact have registered to vote.

Now, the request of this City Council is this; After three
years following the ’70 decennial census—I belive the evi-
dence will show the information regarding the decennial
census was made available about August or September,
the first information, of 1970. So, for three years this City
has not redistricted itself as required by the City Charter.

87

The Council of the City is charged with the responsibility
of redistricting the City.

The evidence will show that with respect to the [45] vari-
ous plans, public hearings were held both in the daytime
and at night, at which time parties had an opportunity to
come forward and to present their views as to the district-
ing of the City. The City Council has adopted the plan
which is represented on this map and which has been at-
tached to the Complaint. It believes that this is a fair and
equitable plan and complies 100 per cent with Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

We submit that this is a plan that should be approved
by this Court as being a viable plan.

I would call the Court’s attention to the fact that we
are dealing with a plan which really will be only used for
a period of seven years because in 1980, by the Charter
of the City of New Orleans, again the City Council as it
then exists will be required to redistrict itself. So, we are
dealing here with a plan which will in fact, looking into
the future, be used for the 1974 election. Incidentally, the
election will be held in March of ’74 for these councilmanic
districts. So, we are dealing here with a plan that will be
used in 1974 and again in 1978, and prior to the 1982 elec-
tion the City Council, by its Charter, will be required to
redistrict itself to then reflect changes in the pollution that
occurred during the next seven years.

So, the plan that being submitted here and which the
Court is being to approve is a plan that will be used
[46] for two elections, and in 1982 the City will be required
to redistrict itself again.

The evidence will show that this is a fair and equitable
plan to the voters of New Orleans and does not deprive
anyone of his right to vote or dilute his vote by reason of
color or creed.

Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Stoner.

Mr. Shurtliff, would the Government desire to make an
opening statement at this time?

Mr. Shurtliff: Not at this time, Your Honor.

88

Judge Robinson: Very well.

Mr. Halpin?

Mr. Halpin: Mr. Cotton will make an opening statement,
Your Honor.

Mr. Cotton: I would like at this time to make an opening
statement.

Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Cotton.

Mr. Cotton: As previously claimed, Your Honor, we rep-
resent a class of black persons, black people in Louisiana,
which comprises 46 per cent of the black population.

As the evidence will show, there has never been a black
person on the City Council. In fact, the present City Council
is all white.

The evidence will further show that because of the racial
complexion of the City Council, black people have [47] suf-
fered tremendously in the amount of city service, municipal
service.

The evidence will further show that the two at large
seats which we as defendant intervenors—is in fact a quota
for white candidates. The evidence will show that it is very
difficult for a black person to legitimately run for these two
at large seats and to publicly claim a black constituency
and at the same time successfully prevail in an election in
the City of New Orleans.

I would like to at this point pay deference to counsel
and show that in the City of New Orleans there is in fact
pockets of black persons along the river, in this area (in-
dicating).

The evidence will further show that the present incum-
bent city councilmen all live in close proximity to each
other, and the first plan and the second plan were guaran-
teed that they would retain their positions on the City
Council.

We intend to prove that throughout the history of elec-
toral politics in the City of New Orleans, racism has always
been a predominating factor up until this point. We intend
to prove that because of the discrimination in voting in
electoral politics in the City of New Orleans, that there is

89

a residual effect upon the black voting population in the
City of New Orleans, so much so that unless this Court
takes into account the two at large seats, it will be at least
a decade or better [48] before a black person can legiti-
mately and successfully compete for those positions.

We intend to show that the present City Council drafted
two plans; that there was adequate time to come up with
a plan suitable to meet the guidelines of the Voters Rights
Act, and that the present City Council, for reasons and
purposes which will later come out in the evidence, did two
things: They guaranteed themselves re-election and at the
same time purposely, purposely came out with a plan that
had the effect of diluting the black vote.

We intend to show that unless seven single member dis-
tricts are included within the reapportionment plan, black
people in the City of New Orleans will at best be confined
to five positions and, if the present plan is adopted, only
one position, which is questionable.

We intend to show finally that this Court does have
the equitable powers to, one, enjoin the elections, and to
come up with a plan that is equitable for all parties, both
black and white, in City of New Orleans.

Again I say, we represent 46 per cent of the black popu-
lace in the City of New Orleans. Black people have been
denied legitimate entrance into electoral polities in the City
Government in the City of New Orleans. We will show,
unless this Court takes significant action, that that trend
will continue for the next decade.

[49] Judge Waddy: Do I understand you to say that this
Court must come up with a plan for the redistricting?

Mr. Cotton: No. Your Honor. I said that unless this
Court takes some action

Judge Waddy: I thought you said a few minutes ago
that this Court had to come up with a plan.

Mr. Cotton: If I did, Your Honor——

Judge Waddy: I was wondering, what was your authority
for that.

90

Mr. Cotton: If I did, Your Honor, I was in error.

Judge Waddy: All right.

Mr. Cotton: Unless this Court takes some action with
regard to the plan under consideration, black persons will
suffer in the City of New Orleans for the next decade.

Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Cotton.

Mr. Stoner, you may proceed with the evidence.

Mr. Stoner: I would like to call as the first witness of

the plaintiffs, Councilman Beer of the City of New Orleans. —™

May it please the Court, the Plaintiff would like to re-
quest the rule on witnesses, if we might. I previously said
that it would not be necessary, but we have been asked to
change that. We will change that.

Judge Robinson: Very well. All witnesses in the case——

Marshal, can you accommodate the witnesses?

[50] The Marshal: Yes, sir.

Judge Robinson: Will you do so before administering
the oath.

The Marshal: Yes, sir.

The Deputy Clerk: All witnesses who expect to testify
in this case, please follow the marshal to the witness room
until called; all witnesses on both sides.

Mr. Shurtliff: May it please the Court,——

Judge Robinson: Mr. Shurtliff.

Mr. Shurtliff: We have a young man who has prepared
many of the exhibits for us purely in a technical sense.
He is not a resident of New Orleans and not interested in
the matter at all. It might be necessary for him to testify.
But in the meantime, he would be helpful to us in keeping
up with the exhibits.

Judge Robinson: Would you identify him for the record?

Mr. Shurtliff: Mr. Tolmach.

Judge Robinson: And your request is that he be per-
mitted to remain in the courtroom?

Mr. Shurtliff: That’s correct.

Judge Robinson: Is there objection?

Mr. Stoner: We have no objection to that.

91

Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, the only witness that we in-
tended tu call was Mr. Johnny Jackson, who is the plaintiff,
[51] and

Judge Robinson: He is a party.

Mr. Halpin: Who is a party, and we would like——

Judge Robinson: He may remain. All right, gentlemen.

Mr. Stoner: No objection.

Judge Robinson: All right. The clerk may administer
the oath.

Whereupon,

Peter H. Beer,

one of the plaintiffs herein, was called as a witness in his
own behalf, and, having been first duly sworn, was exam-
ined and testified as follows:

Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, before questioning
Mr. Beer, I would like to move at this time the admission
into evidence of all the exhibits that have been attached to
the Complaint. This is done in view of the stipulation that
has been entered by the parties. I would also move tha? the
population map which I have referred to in my opening
statement and also the voter registration map which I
have referred to in my opening statement be admitted in
evidence. This too is done with the stipulation of cownsel.

Judge Robinson: Very well. Those exhibits will be re-
ceived. However, Mr. Stoner, I think it would be helpful
for purposes of the transcript if you identify each of *hese
exhibits you refer to. You have referred to three maps.
You have [52] referred to exhibits attached to the Com-
plaint.

Judge Waddy: They should be marked.

Judge Robinson: Let’s have them marked and give them
numbers which will be points of reference for the remainder
of this trial. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Stoner: Yes.

Judge Robinson: All right. Which one do you want? Do
you have any particular order that you want?

92

Mr. Stoner: I have none. I would have started with
Number 1, Exhibit A to the Complaint and go through
those and then pick these up. I believe numbers have al-
ready been put on these three exhibits.

Judge Waddy: Mrs. Kelly, do you have marks on those?

The Deputy Clerk: Yes, sir, Plaintiffs’ No. 1 and No, 2
and No. 3.

Judge Waddy: Now, there are other documents that you
are now offering in evidence besides these three?

Mr. Stoner: Yes. The other documents will be Exhibits
A through, I believe it is, G, that are attached to the Com-
plaint. This Ey ibit 3 is Exhibit H to the Complaint.

Judge Robinson: You simply want the numbers to follow
consecutively with reference to all exhibits attached to the
Complaint, except what now appears as Exhibit No 2, I
take it, is the small map?

Mr. Stoner: No. 3.

[53] Judge Waddy: Let Mr. Stoner find in the Complaint
those that he wants marked.

Mr. Stoner: For the record, Exhibit 1 will be the popu-
lation map.

Judge Robinson: The large map.

Mr. Stoner: The large popuiation may showing the dis-
tribution of population in the City of New Orleans between
black and white.

Exhibit 2 will be the voter registration map which shows
the distribution of registered votews geographically in the
City.

Judge Rohinson: That’s the second largest map.

Mr. Stoner: The second largest map.

Judge Robinson: Very well.

Mr. Stoner: And Exhibit 3 will be the present plan of
redistricting, whieh is a map, and which had been originally
attached as Exhibit H to the Complaint.

Judge Robinson: Very well. I am all straight now.

Mr. Stoner: Exhibit 4 will be Exhibit A to the Complaint.

Judge Robinson: That’s the Charter?

93

Mr. Stoner: The excerpt from tke Charter of the City of
New Orleans. Exhibit 5 will be Exhibit B attached to the
Complaint.

Judge Robinson: These are the excerpts from the 1912
[54] Louisiana Act, as I recall?

Mr. Stoner: From the 1912 Act, yes, Your Honor.

Judge Robinson: All right.

Mr. Stoner: Exhibit 6 will be the Exhibit C to the orig-
inal Complaint, which is a map of the first plan of redistriet-
ing as adopted by the City Council. Exhibit 7 is Exhibit
A to the original Complaint.

Judge Robinson: Exhibit A or D?

Mr. Stoner: I’m sorry, Exhibit D, and is a Mayor-Coun-
cil Series Ordinance No. 7496.

Judge Waddy: That is the plan that you are now espous-
ing; is it not?

Mr. Stoner: No, no, it is not. That was the first plan.

Judge Robinson: The first plan?

Mr. Stoner: That was the first plan.

Judge Robinson: Does that have written on it, Mr.
Stoner, ‘‘Calendar No. 5194’’?

Mr. Stoner: It does.

Judge Robinson: Very well.

Mr. Stoner: Yes, it does. Exhibit 8, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8
would be Exhibit E to the original Complaint and is the
Department of Justice’s letter dated January 15, 1973, with
respect to the first plan, addressed to Mr. Ernest L. Sala-
tich.

Exhibit 9 would be exhibit F to the origina: Complaint
|55] and is an ordinance, Mayor-Council Series Ordinance
No. 5154, and is the present plan, the second plan, which is
before the Court.

Exhibit 10 would be Exhibit G to the original Complaint
and is the Department of Justice’s letter dated July 9,
1973, with respect to the second plan and is addressed to
Mr. Ernest L. Salatich.

A letter trom J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney
General, Exhibit H to the Complaint—-to cover all of the

94

exhibits that were attached to the Complaint—has pre-
viously been identified as Exhibit 3, and that is the map
which shows the Council Districts as proposed in the plan
which is before the Court.

Judge Robinson: Very well. As stated earlier, they will
all be received.

Mr. Stoner: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 through 10 were received in evi-
dence.)

Direct Examination
By Mr. Stoner:

Q. Mr. Beer, would you please state your full name and
address. A. My name is Peter H. Beer, and my address
is 5855 Bel Air Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Q. Mr. Beer, what is your occupation? [56] A. I am
an attorney.

Q. What is your position with respect to this lawsuit?
A. I am one of the plaintiffs in the litigation.

Q. Are you a member of the present Council of the
City of New Orleans? A. I am.

Q. How long have you been a member of that Council?
A. We took office in May of 1970.

Q. You are finishing your first term as a councilman?
A. That term will end in April of 1974.

Q. Which district in the City of New Orleans do you
presently represent?
ordained by the Charter or by ordinance or by the Con-
stitution of the State to be followed at subsequent reap-
portionments or redistrictings? A. No, I don’t think so.
I think that it would be unfair to state that. I don’t think
that the Charter or any State written mandate necessarily
requires that. By 1971, it was one of the provisions that
was more or less set out in the Voting Rights Act of
1965, and by 1972 it was one of the provisions enacted in
Bussie versus MeKiethen, which we try to follow, which
did say that traditional lines should be considered.

Q. How many wards are there in New Orleans? A.
Seventeen, sir.

Q. What function do wards play in the Government of
the parish or of this City? A. Well, traditionally they
have been in—at one time [99] they were pretty much—
they corresponded very much to representative districts
in the City, that is, to the State legislature. They have
been used in groupings to elect certain Federal and State
officials. And, of course, the precinct lines are the lines
just for the neighborhood voting booths. In other words,
the precinct lines, which is the next subdivision down
from the ward, are primarily used as a voter grouping
entity.

Q. Are any officials elected from the ward or wards in
the City? A. I think, sir, that some officials at one time.
There is no doubt in my mind that at one time and still
to a certain extent certain members of the State House
of Representatives are elected specifically from wards.

Q. All right. A. Even though they are now called, say,
state representative district 82 or something like that. But
for years they were like the third ward.

@. And do you know any present house district that is
conterminous with a ward in the City? A. I simply have
to answer in terms of the fact that I don’t know, because
it is not—I can’t say that there are or there aren’t. I can
just plead complete ignorance on the question because it
is something that I just don’t know.

123

Q. Are any other officials, to your knowledge, elected
[100] from the ward? A. I think the wards may still form
the basis for election to the Democratic Parish Executive
Committee. I am not sure of that, but I think that the
Parish Democratic Executive Committee is elected and
was for years. I just don’t kiuw whether it still is or not.
Again, I am ignorant on the question. Certain senatorial
districts, state senatorial districts essentially follow some
ward lines.

© Are those the senatorial districts set out by the Court
in the Bussie case, the District Court? A. Well, actually—
let me see. No, they are the ones that were set out by the
Fifth Cireuit. See, in that case, the District Court said
one thing and then the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit essentially returned the senatorial
districts to the ward lines by a mandate down to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Q. How many senatorial districts are there in Orleans
Parish or the City, because they are conterminous? A.
I think there are eight, seven or eight.

Q. How many black senators are there? A. I don’t think
there are any.

Q. Are you familiar with
none.

Q. Are you familiar with the population statistics for
those senatorial districts? [101] A. No, I really don’t know
much at all about the senatorial districts. My first ex-
posure to public office was serving on the Council of the
City of New Orleans, and I don’t know much about the
exact senatorial districts or for that matter the state
house districts.

Q. You testified that you tried to follow the court’s
opinion in Bussie, the District Court opinion; is that
correct? A. Yes. I am not talking about the senator’s case.
Bussie versus MecKiethen is another case, a different case.

Q. But that case also involves the senate; does it not?

A. Yes.
Q. You were talking in terms of the house. A. Sir?

A. I know there are

124

Q. In terms of the House of Representatives. You fol-
lowed Bussie insofar as it pertained to the House of
Representatives? A. We followed—I think we tried to
follow BuSsie just generally speaking. I don’t think that
anybody calculated to delineate between one case or an-
other. But the language in Bussie was essentially what I
think the charge was from Councilman Moreau to the
Research Staff.

Q. How many House of Representative districts are
there in the parish? A. Again, I am firing from the hip,
but I would say perhaps 15, something in that range.
[102] Q. And how many, if any, of those are served by
blacks? A. Excuse me. Let me just preface that by saying
some of those house districts jump across parish lines. So,
in other words, in some instances the guys representing
part of New Orleans and a part out of New Orleans.

Q. How many of those districts are there? A. I’m not
sure, I know of one.

Q. How many of those
district that is like that.

Q. That goes outside the parish? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many of the House of Representative districts
are there that are represented by blacks? A. I believe
about four or five.

Q. And that plan was set down by Judge West in the
Bussie case? A. I believe so. I think that’s correct.

Q. You stated that there are, to your knowledge, one
Senate district and some House of Representative districts
that go outside the parish to adjoining parishes? A. Sir,
I happen to know of one Senate district because the Sen-
ator who represents the 15th Ward with which I am often
much concerned happens to also represent that area below
the 15th Ward going, in effect, up river, even though it is
hard to see from that map that it is up river. I know that
particular [103] senatorial district crosses a parish line.

Q. So, it doesn’t follow the ward lines? A. Well, yes, it
does, because the only ward, if I recall correctly, that he
represents in the City of New Orleans is the 15th Ward.

A. I know of one senatorial

125

Q. Mr. Beer, without specific reference to a map, you live
generally in this area? A. Come down a little more, a little
more; right around in there.

Q. And is it true that four of the other six councilmen
live in an area generally like this (indicating)? A. Well,
you have got to draw that line down. I happen to live in the
17th Ward about a mile and five-eighths from the lake.
I have not been to the homes of—well, I have been to
the home of Councilman Moreau and I have been to the
old home of Councilman Lambert. I cannot locate in my
mind’s eye the exact location of the other members of the
council, although I know generally where they live.

Q. Well, if we drew a line straight across the map east
and west, from your home east A. Okay, yes, sir.

Q. —would there be any councilman living in the City
below you? A. Yes. I think Councilman Sapir lives in B.
I mean, I know he lives in B. And your line, of course,
passed above [104] B. I have never been to his home and
I don’t know where it is.

Q. But the rest of the City Councilmen, the present
incumbent councilmen, live above the line? A. I don’t know
where Councilman Ciaccio’s house is exactly, so I can’t
answer under oath that that line is exactly right. But I
think your point is generally correct.

Q. Councilman Ciaccio lives out in this area; is that
correct (indicating)? A. Yes, sir, in that general area.
I don’t know if it is quite above or below that imaginary
line that you drew.

Q. If someone were to draw a line starting below your
home east and create a councilmanie district, could that
be done? A. Sir, I suppose anything ean be done in terms
of powers of some court. There is a suit right now existing
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana calling upon that Court to appoint a special
master to draw those lines.

Q. Would that in your opinion, as you testified a moment
ago, be a conscious gerrymander? A. I don’t—I’m sorry,
but I don’t exactly understand your question.

126

Q. I thought you indicated when you were being exam-
ined by Mr. Stoner that in your judgment it would be a
calculated effort—it would have taken a calculated effort
to put councilmen in the same district in view of the fact
that they were already in their own districts. [105] A.
Well, I see your point, and I have to answer you this
way: I think if you decided that you were going to ab-
solutely calculate, for some purpose, whatever it was, to
try to contend to somebody that we were all in a certain
area, you would start out doing just about what you said
you would do.

Q. Would that be a viable reapportionment plan in your
opinion, sir? A. Well, it would be completely inconsistent
with every previous condition from the standpoint of any
sort of stare decisis or any other basis of regularity that
has existed in the City since it was founded in terms of
political subdivisions.

Q. That is because the political subdivisions you are
talking about are wards? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they run generally—and I appreciate there are
17 of them and some of them go differently. .

Q. This is Canal Street (indicating) ?

Judge Waddy: Which is Canal Street?

Witness: Yes, this is Canal Street (indicating). This is
the business district right here (indicating), then you have
a housing project right here (indicating). In fact, you have
two housing projects; you have the Laffite housing project
[326] right here, I don’t know what you call this one right

266

off Canal Street (indicating), but you have two housing
projects right there.

Mr. Shurtliff: I don’t have any further questions on the
maps.

Witness: All right.

Judge Waddy: While you are there, though, has any por-
tion of the area northeast of Canal Street been placed in
District D?

Witness: Northeast of Canal Street in District D? No,
sir, I don’t believe so.

See, Canal Street runs this way (indicating), then Canal
—oh, pardon me, sir. Canal Street runs this way (indicat-
ing), and Canal Boulevard out this way (indicating).

Judge Waddy: No, I’m talking about, I believe, that por-
tion to your right (indicating by pointing). Has any por-
tion of it been put in C, I didn’t mean D.

Witness: Oh, yes, sir, put in C here (indicating), but, sir,
this is predominantly in my opinion a white population out
here (indicating).

Judge Waddy: Come down further, come on down to your
next C.

Witness: All right (moving along the map to a certain
position and indicating), in here?

Judge Waddy: That’s right. Now I understand that [327]
is Canal Street just below that.

Witness: Yes, sir.

Judge Waddy: Now, my question is whether any portion
of the area that is north and east, immediately north and
east, that have been placed over in Section D?

Witness: No, sir, this is still Esplanade Avenue I believe,
and that’s been retained in E.

Now you should have a black population in this area right
here (indicating).

(Addressing co: asel) Can you check that map? It is on
Esplanade and Legion Field, like it comes to a point there.
It’s

Judge Robinson: Come up three lines, Mr. Shurtliff, and
I guess you will have it.

267

Witness: Well, anyway, let’s put it this way, I do know

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0110%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.