Appendix — Beer v. United States

Supreme Court brief1976

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, Uy. S.

J. | ,

a flLep

Volume I DEC 16 jo7%4

| MICHAI curn |

a Se CLERK |

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octeszx TERM, 1973

No. 73-1889

Perer H. Beer, PHiuip C. Ciaccio, JosepH V. Dios,

CLARENCE QO. 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and

Wiu1AM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United

States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,

and

JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Ev 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

IN 005 a ooh eS a ee ede been eaueus 2

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under Voting

Pe Zee cccndckennedn bees bentesenesnnnees 8

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

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

ee i ecenkebeebabeens 53

BES GE TITS a 6c ck cccuctescccccdtdcescecs 54

Transcript of Proceedings ..............eeeeesecees 28

Witnesses:

ah, Ce. ctceceiunsenbeeeéeteeesont 91

St Ge ME 5. . oo ndnugesssnetaweenewe 358

SE ns casuntecinceeeehoeeenbes 395

SD ah, MD ovveeanseseceesences eas 324

Sn MT) <a c iccessocueedeceeeeusuness Ue

Sy GL, BU 0 hv oc cccdeccveséssceces 445

Se eh Mn, css sawacseedonseawes 469

ei oe eed cea heed 247

ae EE a a betes Soe ea 171, 294

EE che sbcheidndededdaeeeusteceeeskeenseues 499

Deponents:

Philip C. Ciaccio (excerpts) ............... 584

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

| Ee rrr 499

I i ek ee

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

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

John D. Lambert, Jr. (excerpts) ............ 305

James N. Pezant (excerpts) ............... 075

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

il Table of Contents Continued

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

Defendants’ Exhibit 3: Moreau’s Original Redistrict-

ing Plan Proposed January

ih Un -cccuadadeneuenenes 622

Defendants’ Exhibit 4: 1972 Redistricting Plan Ordi-

nance 4796 M.C.S. .......... 623

Defendants’ Exhibit 5: 1973 Redistricting Ordinance

Se ovedveuenoesens 624

Defendants’ Exhibit 6: Redistricting Plan Proposed

by New Orleans Chapter,

Ns SPPPPTTTSTT TTT TT Te 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

Perer H. Beer, Puiuipe C. Ciaccto, Josepx V. DirRosa,

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

3ehalf of the City of New Orleans, Appellants

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and

WILLIAM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United

States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,

and

JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Et AL., Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

APPENDIX

Volume I

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) McGowan, 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.,

8-8-73 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.

Auy. 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 ineluding 8/14/73 @

3:00 p.m, to submit proposed order. (N) 5S. 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. $1—Transcript of Proceedings, August 9, 1973; pages

1 thru 171; Rep-&.T. Fedoration; Court’s Copy.

Sept. 21—Application of deft. #1 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. Z—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’ for an extension or time within which to respond

or the motion by any party for a continuance of trial,

until 10-16-73. (N) fobinson, J., (U.S.C.A.,)

Coreoran, J. Waddy, J.

Oct. 1o—Deposition of Oretha Haley taken on Oct. 4, 1973.

Oct. 15—Deposition of Nils R. Douglas taken on Oct. 4

1973.

(ct. lo Deposition of (Clarence (). Dupuy taken on (jet. Da,

1973.

Oct. lo Deposition of Joseph V. DiRosa taken on Oct. D,

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.

4, 1973.

1973

Oet. 15

1973.

Oct. 15—Response of pltfs to deft’s request for admissions ;

e/s 10-15-73.

Deposition of Philip C. Ciacci, taken on Oct. 3,

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

2, 1973.

Oct. 17—Trial Resumed; respited until 10-18-75, 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 Woffman, A.M. &

Eugene Fedoration, P.M.) Robinson, J., (U.S.C.A.),

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—Transeript of proceedings, 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;

e/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. &

Waddy, 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, 338-73)

Nov. 29—Stipulation re Exhibits to be transmitted with

record to the United States Supreme Court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civic Action No. 1495-73

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

Pup C, Craccto, 7341 Springlake Drive,

New Orleans, Louisiana

Josepn 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

For and On Behalf of the City of New Orleans

Plaintiffs

vs.

Unrrep States or America and Exuior L. RicHarpson,

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.

3. Plaintiffs seek to administer a change with respect to

voting different from that in force prier 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 ITT,

Section 3-103, is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘‘A’’,

5. The boundaries of the Wards of the City of New

Orleans have been in force 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 cases, these Ward boundaries go from the

Misvissippi 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 districts 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

Mayor Council Series, a copy of which is attached hereto

as Exhibit ‘‘D’’.

2. 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 ‘‘C’’ 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’’,

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 circle

and the Districts are in block letters A-K.

d numerals

16. The population of each of the Districts by black

and white persons and by black and white registered voters

1s set out as follows:

District ‘‘A’’

District ‘*B’’

District ‘*(’?

Disrricr ‘‘D”’

Districr ‘*B”?

Districr ‘* A’?

Districr ‘‘B’’

Districr ‘*(‘”’

Distrricr ‘*}—’’

Districr ‘*B”?

120,971

117,378

117,253

118,337

119,532

117,901

118,678

119,023

118,337

119,532

First Plan Pop ation

REG. VOTERS (JUNE- 1973)

BLACK

38,011

69,440

47,974

51,447

60,436

Seconp PLan Popu.ation

REG. VOTERS (JUNE-1973)

BLACK

36,665

76,109

42,651

51,447

60,436

WHITE

82.960

47,938

69,279

66,890

59,096

WHITE

81,236

42,569

76,372

66,890

59,096

BLACK

22.9%

47.6%

26.4%

37.5%

43.0%

BLACK

22.8%

53.1%

23.6%

37.5%

43.0%

17. Many public hearings were had on these two plans

and everyone was given an opportunity to be heard.

18. The next primary election for councilmen

Louisiana law will be on Nove

qualifying dates for this prim

of August, 1973. The general e

1974, and the assumption of o

under

mber 10, 1973, with the

ary being in the latter part

lection will be held in March,

fice will be in April, 1974.

19. The Council has for many months been trying to

achieve a proper redistricting of the Council. EF;

1972, shortly after the final 1970 census figures

Karly in

were first

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 4851

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 provision 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 change (again requiring a

vote of the people) seeking to increase the Council to nine

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

failed and the Council continued to consist of seven mem-

bers.

) ry . ‘ . . .

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 o154

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, ail 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

was 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. (Distriets ““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 9154 M.C.S.

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

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

on 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 Ordi-

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/ Buaxe 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 Plawtiffs

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. Councilmanic 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.

Ward, the Third Ward, the Fourth Ward, the Fifth

Ward, and the Sixth Ward.

1The changes in the composition of the five councilmanie dis-

tricts, as reflected herein, were effectuated by ordinance No. 2296

M.C.8., Adopted October 19, 1961.

(d) District ‘‘D’’ shall be composed of the Sev-

enth Ward, and the Mighth 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 shal! 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 forees 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 elec-

tion to be held on the first Tuesday following the first

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.

Exhibit “B”

[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 Section 2)

Boundaries of words 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,

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

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 of 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

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 thence

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 said projected line

to the center of Esplanade street 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 cen»

of Bayou St. John and Cut Off to the south shore of Lake

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

Klysian 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

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, and thence along the middle of Lake Pontchar-

train to the center of the Rigolets, and thence along the

center of the Rigolets to the Lake Borgne, ard thence along

the main shore of Lake Borgne, including all islands within

one marine league distance thereof, to the 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 0 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 the middle

of the Mississippi river on the projected line 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

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 of 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 cente: 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

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

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 al] 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.

Exhibit “D”

ORDINANCE

(As Amended)

City or New Or.LeANS

City Hall, January 15, 1972

Calendar No. 5194

No. 4796 Mayor Councu. Serres

By: CouncttMan 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 Or.EANsS

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.

Ward 4; Ward 5; Ward 6; Ward 7, precincts 12, 13,

15, 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 27A; Ward 15, precincts 1, 2,

o, 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.

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.

Avoptep By tne Councit or THE City or New Or-LEANS

Marcu 2, 1972

JosePH V. Di Rosa

Presipent or THe Covuncin

Delivered to the Mayor on March 2, 1972

Approved: March 3, 1972

Moon LaNpDRIEU

Mayor

Returned by the Mayor on March 3, 1972 at 3:30 P.M.

Rocer L. Sarrat

CLerK oF CouNcIL

mlm

Exhibit “E”

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.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-

sequently, on behalf of the Attorney General I must inter-

pose an objection.

We have reached th‘s conclusion reluctantly because we

fully understand the complexities facing the city in design-

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 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 reappor-

tionment plan.

In this connection, I wish to bring to your attention our

receipt on January 12, 1973, of your City Council 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

Exhibit “F”’

City or New ORLEANS

CITY HALL, DECEMBER 7, 1972

CALENDAR NO, 5475

No, 5154 Mayor Counci Serres

By: CouncrtmMan 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 Counci. or tur City or New OnLeans

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

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

District E shall be composed of Ward 9, less precincts

12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 25A.

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 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

, in accordance with the provisions of the election

laws of the State.

elections

ADOPTED BY THE CouNCIL or THE Crry or New OrLEANS

May 3, 1973

Joserpu V. Dit Rosa

PRESIDENT oF CouNCIL

Delivered to the Mayor on May 3, 1973

"RUGROEES 6 occccdcccecscosstcceesess

ONES 0 66 66dbkcscdeccescucesanss

Mayor

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

Joserpn C, Pererson,

CLERK or CouNctL

*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 tne 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 councilmanie 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

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-

erall, 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

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. Sranxiey Portincer

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.

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 allegations 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-

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.

18. 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

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 sufficient 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 cest in the

election on Ordinance No. 4923 M.C.S. did not favor the

adoption of the City Charter amendment set out therein.

22. The United States is without knowledge or infor-

mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of that pertion 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 ‘nited States admits the allegations of the

second and fourth sentences of paragraph 22 of the Com-

plaint.

23. The United States is without knowledge or infor-

mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alle-

gations of 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

‘‘'P]laintiffs believe that ...’’. Answering further the

United States denies that Ordinance No. 5154 M.CS. 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 on account of race or color.

Wuererore, the United States prays that the Court deny

the relief requested by plaintiffs.

J. STantey Porrrncer

Assistant Attorney General

/8/ M. Karu Suvrturr

GERALD W. Jones

M. Kari Suvrturr

NATHANIEL FRIENDS

Attorneys

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

739-3849

[Certificate of Service Omitted]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 1495-72

[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.

5154 of the City of New Orleans that redistricted the city

as required by Article III, 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

FE. 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 Councilmanic 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 Councilmanie 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 vy. 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.

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 councilmanic 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 allegations 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

Stantey A. Hatpry, Jr.

Kipp, Karz & Hauprn

906 Carondelet Building

226 Carondelet Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

(504) 581-2688

Cuar.es ik, Corton

Cotton, Jones & Fazanpe

JacK GREENBERG

James M. Nasait, III

Eric SCHNAPPER

Cuar.es E. WituiaMs, III

Witey Branton

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/3/ James M. Nasrit, III

James M. Nabrit, III

Dated: August 8, 1973.

Exhibit “A”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Civil Action No. 73-1862

CLass AcTIon

Section D

JoHnNy Jackson, Jr., THEoporr Marcuanp, Larry Jones,

James SInGLtetox, Metvix Busn, on behalf of them-

selves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

versus

Tue Counci, or tHe City or New Orueans: Josepn V.

DiRosa, James A “Moreav, Pure C. Craccro, Jonn D.

LamBeErT, Jr., CLARENcE O. Dupvy, Jr., Epp L. Saprr,

and Peter H. Breer, members of the Council of the City

of New Orleans; Tue Crry or New Orveans; and

Mavrice Lanpriev, in his official capacity as Mayor of

the City of New Orleans, Defendants.

Complaint

I. JURISDICTION

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 councilmaniec

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

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 Councilmanie District

D. Plaintiff James Singleton resides at 1931 Fourth

Street and is registered to vote in Councilmanic 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.,

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

the city council.

5. 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.

* 7 . * 7 * od > 7 *

Ill. Srarement

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 councilmaniec 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

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 numeric population configura-

tions of district compactness or regularity of shape.

Y. 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 prescribed 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.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 sub-

mission do not appear to have been based on any com-

pelling governmental need or to reflect numeric

population configurations or considerations of district

compactness or regularity of shape.

Uur evaluation of Ordinance Numbers 4796 and 5154

indicates 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 predominantly black neighbor-

hoods in the city are located generally in an east-

west progression, the vertical districts in the sub-

mitted plans divided the black neighborhoods and

combined them with white areas in the north and south

of the city, resulting in districts with more white than

black voters.

Although the shape of the submitted districts have

been in part based upon the shape of the 17 wards in

New Orleans, the wards do not of themselves define

official boundaries bearing upon the election of or

representation by City Council members, and ad-

herence 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 dis-

tricts 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 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 necessary

to achieve a successful reapportionment of the city’s

population.

12. 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 but another at-

tempt to deprive black citizens of New Orleans of their

right to an unfettered franchise and all voters of New

Orleans of their right to clect the city council members

under a constitutionally sufficient plan of apportionment.

13. In both ordinances, the city council has purpose-

fully attempted to effect ‘‘slot machine’’ racial gerry-

mandering by constituting the districts in a vertical north

to south, river to lake configuration, which, given the well-

known racial residential patterns running east to west,

would have the inevitable, predictable and fully anticipated

effect of diluting the voting strength of black citizens of

New Orleans.

14. The city council attempted to effect these two plans

in spite of the fact that numerous black leaders testified

before the city council outlining in minute detail the racially

discriminatory nature of said plans and that the city

council had before it a number of alternate plans.

15. Section 3-103(3) of the Charter of the City of New

Orleans prescribes a ‘‘mandatory duty’’ upon the city

council to redistrict itself within six months of the official

publication of the United States decennial census and

further provides that if the council fails to perform this

mandatory duty, ‘‘the members of the Council shall not

receive any further salaries until the Council shall have

adopted such ordinance ... and the Director of Finance

shall not issue checks for such salaries for said periods.’’

The actions and omissions of the city council and its

individual members in failing to make a good faith effort

to redistrict themselves in keeping with the constitutional

one man, one vote mandate, the constitutional and federal

statutory prohibition against racially discriminatory

delineation of electoral districts, and the mandate of their

own charter has resulted in the city council being without

a valid plan and without the prospect of devising a valid

plan and the election process scheduled to begin in ap-

proximately one month. Unless this Court immediately

appoints a special master to receive suggested redistricting

plans and devise a plan which conforms to the one man,

one vote mandate and the prohibition against racial dis-

crimination and specifically avoids the racially diserimi-

natory vertical arrangement of districts, plaintiffs and

their class will be effectively denied the right to vote by

virtue of being denied the right to elect members of the

city council at the regularly scheduled elections under a

constitutionally sufficient plan of apportionment.

LV. ViouwatTion or Law

16. The present apportionment of the city council pro-

vided by Section 3-103(1) of the city charter dilutes the

relative strength of the class of voters residing in under-

represented councilmanic districts to such an extent as to

violate the rights of plaintiffs and other voters similarly

situated under the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment.

Seconp Count

17. As more fully set out above, the actions and omis-

sions of the city council and its individual members in

failing to devise in good faith a constitutionally sufficient

non-discriminatory plan of apportionment have deprived

and continue to deprive plaintiffs and the class and sub-

class they represent of their rights secured by the Four-

teenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of

the United States.

Tuirp Count

18. As more fully set out above, the actions of the city

council and its individual members in failing to devise in

good faith a constitutionally sufficient non-discriminatory

plan of apportionment within six months of the publication

of the 1970 Census have deprived plaintiffs and their class

of rights secured by the Charter of the City of New

Orleans. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over this

cause of action.

V. Eeurtry

19. There is a real and actual controversy between the

parties as described herein. Plaintiffs have no adequate

remedy at law. Plaintiffs are suffering and stand to suffer

irreparable injury as a result of the apportionment chal-

lenged herein and the failure of defendants the city coun-

cil and its members to effect a constitutionally sufficient

plan of redistricting, and that injury will continue and be-

come hopelessly irreparable unless enjoined by this Court.

VI. Cotor or Law

20. All of the acts alleged in this complaint to have been

done by defendants were done under color of law of the

State of Louisiana and under color of the defendants’ re-

spective offices as officers or agents of the State.

VII. Prayer For Revrer

21. Wuererore, plaintiffs respectfully pray,

a) That this Court immediately appoint a special master

pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure and direct said master to receive suggested plans

of apportionment and expeditiously devise a plan of re-

districting for the Council of the City of New Orleans which

complies with the one man, one vote mandate, avoids racial

discrimination and specifically avoids those racially dis-

criminatory features found objectionable by the Attorney

General of the United States, in prior plans of the city

council invalidated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act of 1965.

Plaintiffs suggest that the Court appoint one of the

following exceptionally qualified persons to serve as special

master:

Dr. Jewel L. Prestage

Professor of Political Science

Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Visiting Professor of Political Science,

Louisiana State University in New Orleans

Mr. Peter W. Dangerfield

President, Metro Consulting and Research

4224 South Claiborne Avenue

New Orleans, Louisiana

b) That defendants the City of New Orleans and Maurice

Landrieu, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, be enjoined

from paying and that defendants the individual members

of the Council of the City of New Orleans be enjoined from

receiving any further salaries of the city council members

until and unless the city council adopts a good faith con-

stitutionally sufficient plan of apportionment.

c) That defendants be ordered to place into escrow the

salaries of the members of the city council to secure pay-

ment of compensation to the special master, plaintiffs’ ex-

penses, and reasonable attorney’s fees in this litigation.

d) That the Court issue a declaratory judgment that the

apportionment of the city council under Section 3-103(1)

is unconstitutional and violative of the constitutional

rights of plaintiffs and others similarly situated, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 2201.

e) That the Court issue preliminary and permanent in-

junctions restraining defendants from further implement-

ing Section 3-103 of the city charter.

f) That the Court issue preliminary and permanent in-

junctions requiring defendants to implement a plan of re-

districting which is racially non-discriminatory and con-

forms to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

g) That the Court award plaintiffs their court costs,

expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

h) Plaintiffs further pray for such additional relief as

is just and equitable.

tespectfully submitted,

STANLEY A. Hatpin, Jr.

Kipp, Katz & Haupin

Cuaries E. Corton

Cotton, JONES & FAzANDE

CuHarLes WILLIAMS

Eric SCHNAPPER

Jack GREENBERG

James Nasrit III

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

by Stanuey A. Hatpry, Jr.

Stanley A. Halpin, Jr.

Trial Attorney

Of Counsel:

Davin J. Dennis

1110 Royal Street

New Orleans, Louisiana

Datep: July 12, 1973

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 1495-73

[Caption Omitted]

Points And Authorities

Petitioners seek to intervene in the instant action to in-

sure that their interests as described in the motion to in-

tervene are adequately protected. It has previously been

held that such an intervention is proper. City of Peters-

burg, Virgmia v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (U.S.

D.C, Dist. Col. 1972); City of Richmond vy. United States,

U.S. D.C. Dist. Col., Civil Action No. 1718-72.

WHEREFORE petitioners pray that their motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

STANLEY A. Hatprn, Jr.

Kipp, Katz & Hauprn

Cares FE. Corton

Cotton, JONES & FaZANDE

JACK GREENBERG

James M. Nasnirt, III

Eric SCHNAPPER

Cuartes FE, Wiiuiams, III

Witey Branton

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

by /s/ James M. Nasrirt, III

James M. Nabrit, III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 1495-73

[Caption Omitted]

Answer of Intervenors

1. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*1”’ of the complaint.

2. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘2”’

of the complaint.

3. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘3”’

of the complaint.

4. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘4”’

of the complaint.

). Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘5”’

of the complaint.

6. Intervenors are without information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of para-

graph ‘‘6’’ of the complaint.

7. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘7”’

of the complaint.

8. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘8”’

of the complaint.

9. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph ‘‘9”’

of the complaint, except that they are without information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation

that it was not mathematically possible to redistrict the

Council by wards.

10. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘**10”’ of the complaint.

11. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*11”’ of the complaint.

12. Intervenors deny the allegations of paragraph

**12”’ of the complaint.

13. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

13’’ of the complaint.

14. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*14”’ of the complaint.

15. Intervenors admit the allegations of psragraph

**15”’ of the complaint.

16. Intervenors are without sufficient information to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph

**16”’ of the complaint.

17. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*17’’ of the complaint.

18. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

**18”’ of the complaint.

19. Intervenors deny the allegations of the first sen-

tence of paragraph ‘‘19’’ of the complaint. Intervenors

are without sufficient information to form a belief as to

the truth of the other allegations of paragraph ‘‘19”’ of

the complaint.

20. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*20’’ of the complaint.

21. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*21”’ of the complaint.

22. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

‘*22’’ of the complaint.

23. Intervenors deny the allegation of paragraph ‘‘23”’

of the complaint that an effort was made to devise a work-

able, responsible and equitable plan, and are without infor-

mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other

allegations of the complaint.

24. Intervenors deny the allegations of paragraph

‘*24”’ of the complaint.

25. Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph

**25”’ of the complaint.

26. Intervenors deny the allegations of paragraph

‘*26” of the complaint that decision of the Attorney Gen-

eral to disapprove Ordinance 5154 M.C.S. was without a

full and fair appraisal of all relevant information. Inter-

venors admit the other allegations paragraph ‘‘26”’ of the

complaint.

27. Intervenors deny the allegations of paragraph

**27”’ of the complaint.

28. Each of the plans enacted by the City Council of

New Orleans was enacted with the purpose and effect of

preventing the election of any black members of the council

and preserving in office the white incumbents by diluting

the votes of black voters by placing those voters in districts

where they will be outnumbered by white voters.

29. In the year and one half since the 1970 census data

became available, plaintiffs have persistently failed to

enact a plan acceptable under the Voting Rights Act and

the United States Constitution because of their desire to

assure their reelection by racial gerrymandering, to prevent

the election of black councilmen, and to dilute the votes of

black voters. Plaintiffs have obstinately refused to enact

such a plan in the further hope that this delay would pre-

cipitate a crisis which would compel the Justice Department

or the .ourts to approve elections in 1973 under an invalid

and unconstitutional redistricting plan.

30. There is now pending in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New Orleans an action

brought by intervenors to compel the enactment of a redis-

tricting plan to be approved by that court. Jackson v.

Council of City of New Orleans, No. 73-1862. On August

4, 1973, Judge Boyle appointed a special master to draw

up such a plan. Elections can and will be held under such

court approved plan in an orderly and fair manner without

the necessity of any intervention by this Court.

31. In view of the proceedings in Jackson v. Council of

City of New Orleans, there is no need or justification for

this Court to decide precipitously and without time for

detailed consideration of the complex issues raised by the

instant case. To do so would be to reward plaintiffs for

their delay in filing the instant action, and would encourage

other jurisdictions subject to the Voting Rights Act to

delay, by a serious of inadequate proposals or otherwise,

commencing litigation in this Court until the eleventh hour

in the hope of precipitating a hurried decision allowing

them to change their election laws despite the timely and

carefully considered disapproval of the Department of

Justice.

Re.pectfully submitted,

STantey A. Hap, Jr.

Kipp, Katz & Hatpin

Crates E. Corron

Corton, Jones & FazanvDE

JACK GREENBERG

James M. Nasrit, III

Eric SCHNAPPER

Cuares E. WiiuiaMs, III

Wney Branton

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

by /s/ James M. Nasairt, III

James M. Nabrit, III

[Certificate of Service Omitted]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Courtroom No. 1

U.S. Court House

Washington, D.C.

Thursday, August 9, 1973

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing in open

court at 10:00 o’clock a.m.

Before: Honorable Spottswood W. Robinson, IIT, USCA.,

Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, USDC., Honorable Joseph

C. Waddy, USDC.

* 7 * . > * . * . *

[3] The Deputy Clerk: Civil Action 1495-73, Peter H.

Beer, et al., versus the United States of America, et al.

Mr. Stoner, Mr. Treese, Mr. Arata, and Mr. Salatich for

the plaintiffs. Mr. Gorman, Mr. Shurtliff, and Mr. Friends

for the defendants. Mr. Halpin, Mr. Williams and Mr.

Cotton for the intervenors.

Judge Robinson: It would be helpful to the Court if at

the outset counsel would identify themselves for the in-

formation of the Court and also for the benefit of the

record.

Mr. Stoner: Thank you, Your Honor.

May it please the Court, my name is James R. Stoner.

I am appearing here as counsel for the plaintiffs. With

me is my partner, James R. Treese, who is also appearing

for the plaintiffs. Also with us is the City Attorney of

New Orleans, Mr. Blake G. Arata, and the Assistant City

Attorney for the City of New Orleans, Mr. Ernest Salatich.

I would move at this time that Mr. Arata and Mr. Sala-

tich be admitted as members of this bar for the purpose

of this case.

Judge Robinson: That motion will be granted. Thank

you very much, Mr. Stoner.

Representing the United States?

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

With me at counsel table is Walter Gorman who will be

[4] joined shortly by Nathaniel Friends.

Judge Robinson: Thank you very much.

Representing the applicants for intervention?

Mr. Halpin: Stanley Halpin representing the movers

for the defendant, the intervenor-defendants. With me is

Mr. Charles Cotton ard Mr. Charles Williams. I am a

a member of the D.C. Bar but don’t maintain an office ad-

dress here. I would ask for purposes of this proceeding

that Mr. Cotton and Mr. Williams be allowed to proceed

for this case only.

Judge Robinson: That motion will be granted.

Judge Waddy: Do you have a local address, sir?

Mr. Halpin: We have one member, one counsel, as local

counsel, Mr. Wiley Branton, who does appear on the papers

and who would be responsible.

Judge Waddy: Mr. Branton is not here at the present

time?

Mr. Halpin: Mr. Branton is not here right at this mo-

ment. If it would be necessary, I could have him come

down.

Judge Waddy: His name does appear on the paper?

Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir.

Judge Robinson: Your motion, Mr. Halpin, for the ad-

mission of your colleagues will be held in abeyance until

the Court has made a ruling on the question of whether

intervention will be allowed. In the event the intervention

is allowed, the motion respecting counsel will be granted.

(5) Mr. Halpin: Thank you.

Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, at the outset we would like

to take up the question of intervention. The application

for intervention was filed on yesterday. The Court received

it this morning. We have noted that it was personally

served on the original parties to the case on yesterday.

Is there any objection to the granting of that motion?

Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, it would be our position, we

have no objection to the intervention for the purpose of

argument of the issues. We, however, do not know what

position they would be taking with respect to the issues

which have been raised in the Complaint, and we believe

that the purposes of their intervention—we would have no

objection to their intervention for the purpose of argument

of the case to the Court. We believe that if they were to be

allowed to intervene for all purposes, that is, the cross-

examination of witnesses and the offering of evidence, it

may unduly prolong the hearing on the case.

Judge Robinson: Let me inquire of Mr. Halpin. Is there

a proposed complaint in the intervention?

Mr. Halpin: Yes, a proposed answer in intervention.

Judge Robinson: Is it attached? Oh, yes. Very well.

Did you want to respond to the statement just made to

the Court by Mr. Stoner?

Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. We would like to intervene [6] not

only for the purposes of argument but for all purposes

in this matter, for these reasons: The individuals who we

represent are the named plaintiffs also in the New Orleans

case, Jackson vs. the Council of the City of New Orleans

which has recently appointed a special master to draft the

plan for the City Council in the event that this Court

finds, as the Justice Department did, that the plan is

racially discriminatory. Also, that has been accepted with-

out objection in New Orleans as an adequate class action.

We feel that we represent interests of black people in

New Orleans and are more familiar with the particular

nuances and so on of this case, so that, one, it would be

extremely useful to the Court and protective of our party’s

rights to be available to cross-examine and to examine on

direct witnesses.

Further, we do have only one additional witness that

we would call, and that would be Mr. Jackson. We do not

intend to prolong the proceedings in any way, and I can

give the Court my personal assurance that we will do

nothing to delay the proceedings.

Further, | would point out that we will be proposing

as a defense a legal theory which will require certain types

of questions to be put to the witness and certain types of

evidence, which the Department of Justice may not—I am

not sure exactly what their approach is, but it is not clear

that [7] they will present that type of evidence from a

live witness.

Judge Robinson: Now, the issue or issues that your

clients would desire to address would differ in what way,

if any, from the issues already raised

Mr. Halpin: All right. Well

Judge Robinson: —by the complaint and by the Gov-

ernment’s answer?

Mr. Halpin: Well, the issue that we will raise, which I

think has been raised to some extent and is of a nature

in the proceedings, is that the plan of the City Council

before the Court must be determined as not racially dis-

criminatory either in purpose or effect. What we would

argue is that the burden is also upon the City Council

to prove that the two at large seats on the City Council

are also not racially discriminatory in purpose or effect

in order for them to carry their burden of proof. It is

not entirely clear-‘rom the Justice Department’s memo-

randum and so forth and pleadings in this case whether

they are going to take that position and whether they

are going to take it aggressively, and we would take that

position aggressively. We feel that under United States

versus Georgia, a voting change is a voting change, and

since there has been a redistricting and a re-change, the

question is directly before the Court as to whether or not

the plaintiffs, that is, the City Council, can prove to the

Court that these at large elections for the two seats on

the City [8] Council are not racially discriminatory, and

we would propose that point very aggressively.

Judge Robinson: Am I correct in my understanding that

except for that, your clients would propose to address

themselves only to matters that are within the existing

issues?

Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Robinson: Very well. Let me inquire of Mr. Shurt-

iff, what is the Government’s position, because in going

over the papers I was not clear either as to whether or

not the issue with reference to the two at large council-

men as distinguished from those elected, the five from the

districts, are in issue here.

Mr. Shurtliff: It is our position, Your Honor, that the

issue of the two at large seats may be reached by this

Court

Judge Robinson: May?

Mr. Shurtliff: May be considered by this Cour: but that

it is really not necessary to get to that issue. The issue,

we believe, can be resolved on the question of whether or

not the districting plan of the five district councilmen had

the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of

race, and that that issue can fairly easily be resolved and

that it would not be necessary to get to the question of

the impact of the two at large members.

Judge Robinson: If it turns out that you are incorrect

[9] on that estimate, we would have to reach the question

of the two councilmen at large; would we not?

Mr. Shurtliff: That’s correct.

Judge Waddy: Mr. Stoner, what you are arguing is

that you have no objection to the applicants for inter-

vention to come in as amicus curiae, but you are opposing

the intervention; aren’t you?

Mr. Stoner: I guess, Your Honor, that would be the

effect. Let me say at this point that we do not believe that

the at large seats are at issue before the Court, for the

reason that this is a charter of the City of New Orleans.

It is at issue. It has been in effect since 1954.

Now, that charter specifically calls for five election dis-

tricts and two at large seats. The history of the charter

of New Orleans as set out in the complaint will show that

there have been two elections held within the past year

on the subject matter of changing the charter of the City

of New Orleans. The first proposal was that the charter

be changed so as to expand the council from a seven-man

body to an 11-man body with nine district councilmen and

two at large.

That matter was submitted to the voters of New Orleans

and was defeated by the electorates.

Following that, a proposal was made that the City Coun-

cil be expanded from its present seven-man body to a nine-

man body, consisting of seven district councilmen and two

[10] at large councilmen. That matter was submitted to

the electorate in an election held this year and was de-

feated.

So that the matter before the Court is the council as

it presently exists; I mean by that the number of council

districts, namely five councilmanic districts and two at

large. That is the law of the City of New Orleans.

The electorate on two occasions has turned down a pro-

posal that the City Council be otherwise constituted. We

would submit that the question of the at large election of

two councilmen is not at issue before this Court. The only

issue before the Court is whether or not the five council

districts as proposed in Plan No. 2 which is submitted to

this Court for approval discriminates in violation of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Judge Waddy: Would it be appropriate, however, for

the Court to consider the two at large seats on the council

in connection with the overall plan for redistricting?

Mr. Storer: Your Honor, I do not think it would, because

I think in effect that the Court then would be considering

—would in effect be rewriting the City Charter of the City

of New Orleans.

Judge Waddy: If we are to determine the effect of the

redistricting, don’t we have to determine it in connection

with the entire package that will result after the redistrict-

ing?

[11] Mr. Stoner: I think you do, Your Honor. I think

the Court does. But I do submit that the City Council as

constituted by the City Charter is the matter which must

be considered by this Court, and that is the five council-

manic districts and the two at large. I do not think that

hey

this Court can be asked by any party to rewrite the City

Charter of the City of New Orleans.

Judge Robinson: I gather from the papers I have read

and from what you have just said that there is nothing

in the redistricting which is now before the Court that

would affect in anywise boundaries or anything else that

would concern the election of the two councilmen at large?

Mr. Stoner: That is correct, because the boundaries or

the two councilmen at large are the city limits of the City

of New Orleans, and the boundaries we are dealing with

here are the boundaries of the five councilmanie districts.

Judge Robinson: The applicants for intervention, how-

ever, want to intervene not simply in an amicus curiae role

but to intervene to achieve party status, not only for the

purpose of litigating the issues with reference to the coun-

cilmen that are already before the Court, with the state-

ment having been made by counsel for the applicants so

as to justify what the applicants expect to seek in this

litigation.

Do you have a position now with reference to the

[12] motion to intervene in the true sense, not in the

amicus sense?

Mr. Stoner: We have no objection to the intervention

of these parties. We think all the facts should be before

this Court. We do, however, differ with the intervenors on

the question of the two at large. Now, as I understand the

statement

Judge Robinson: Perhaps I can save you a little effort.

It seems to me that unless there is objection to the inter-

vention—and if there is objection, of course, the Court

would have to rule on it—we would permit the intervention

and we would decide later just what the scope of the issues

in this case might be. It is clear enough to me that the

applicants at least want to participate in the litigation of

issues that are framed for decision by the Court.

Now, with that in mind, is there any objection to the

granting of the motion?

Mr. Stoner: I would submit, Your Honor, that it would

be the plaintiffs’ position that we would have no objection

on that basis. But may I consult with counsel

Judge Robinson: Certainly.

Mr. Stoner: —sitting at counsel table?

(Whereupon, plaintiffs’ counsel confer.

Mr. Stoner: The position is as I have just stated. We

would have no objection.

Judge Robinson: Very well.

[13] Mr. Shurtliff, does the United States have a position

on this?

Mr. Shurtliff: We would have no objection to the inter-

vention with full rights.

Judge Robinson: Very well. The Court is now prepared

to grant the motion to intervene subject to the limitation

that I mentioned a bit earlier. Intervention will be granted.

The scope of the issues, however, not only for the purpose

of the intervenors but also for the purpose of other parties,

is a matter which the Court at a later time will undertake

to define.

Also, as the Court indicated earlier, the granting of

this motion will be accompanied by a grant of the motion

to permit the participation of Mr. Williams and Mr. Cotton

as co-counsel for the intervenors in this case.

Now, gentlemen, is there anything else?

Judge Waddy: And leave to file the answer which is

attached to the motion will be granted.

Is there anything else now in connection with the motion

to intervene?

The next matter that the Court would like to take up is

the question of just what sort of presentation counsel

have in mind making. In going over the papers we under-

stand that the plaintiffs and the defendants—and from the

statement [14] made by Mr. Ilalpin, | gather to perhaps

a more limited extent, the intervenors—all contemplate the

introduction of evidence. It certainly would be helpful to

the Court if you gentlemen would define for our edifica-

tion just what your expectations are in that particular

regard, particularly with reference to the amount of time

you think those presentations are going to take.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I stated that the Court

has great concern stemming from the fact that it is its

understanding that it is desiring to set a date sometime

later this month by which candidates for office in the City

of New Orleans are to qualify. Today, of course, is August

Ith. We do not know as to whether indeed it will be pos-

sible to litigate this question and reach a decision by the

date that counsel for the plaintiffs desire a decision of

the Court. Quite obviously, this is going to be affected by

the nature of the presentations the parties have in mind.

Mr. Stoner, could you tell us what the expectations of

the plaintiffs are?

Mr. Stoner: Yes, sir. May it please the Court, counsel

for the plaintiffs and the Government have been mindful

of the length of time that could be involved in this kind

of litigation, and we have agreed to stipulate to many of

the facts which we think could be helpful in saving the

Court’s time. For instance, the large map which you see

exhibited here [15] is a map that has been stipulated and

shows the distribution of white and black population in

the City of New Orleans as of 1970 census. Counsel for

the Government and Plaintiffs have stipulated that this

‘an be admitted for that purpose without formal proof.

Likewise, we will submit a map showing the distribution

of white and black voters in the City of New Orleans by

registration, and that will include figures, registration fig-

ures as of June 1973. That is just two months ago, and

it has been updated by the research staff of the City of

New Orleans. Likewise, that map will be stipulated by the

parties as to geographically showing the distribution of

lack and white voters.

In addition to that, the Government has requested a

number of stipulations as to some of the other plans that

have been offered by other parties as to other matters

that on behalf of the plaintiffs I would like to present to

the Court; that we will stipulate wherever we can to the

evidence so as to save the Court some time.

Judge Robinson: Aside from stipulations, as you view

the matter now, Mr. Stoner, what do you think the time re-

quirements for the plaintiffs’ presentation will be?

Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, | think for the most part we

could offer all our evidence today.

Judge Waddy: We are not talking about arguments. We

[16] are talking about presentation of evidence plus ar-

guments.

Mr. Stoner: I would think that the case should be able

to be tried today and tomorrow from both our standpoints.

Judge Waddy: How many live witnesses do you antici-

pate?

Mr. Stoner: We intend to call at least one member of

the City Council and possibly two members of the City

Council Planning Staff and possibly a third. So, as of the

present time we would expect five witnesses.

Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Stoner.

Mr. Shurtliff, what are your expectations?

Mr. Shurtliff: May it please the Court, depending on

how successful we are stipulating to some of the exhibits

that we have proposed, we would anticipate calling four

witnesses who would be rather short, we expect, and also

extensive cross-examination of some of the—extensive in

terms of an hour or so, I would expect, on two of the

witnesses offered by the plaintiffs in the case.

| would agree with Mr. Stoner that in all likelihood the

case could easily be tried today and tomorrow, especially

if we were able to resolve a couple of minor disagreements

on four of the prepared exhibits that we have prepared.

Judge Robinson: And if you do not make this resolution?

Mr. Shurtliff: [ would anticipate it may take 20 minutes

of the Court’s time for us to put someone on to explain

[17] the method by which those exhibits were prepared.

Judge Robinson: How long do you think it will take to

resolve it? Less than 20 minutes?

Mr. Shurtliff: 1 would hope so.

Judge Robinson: Very weil. Mr. Halpin?

Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, we would generally also be

willing to stipulate where we can. We intend at this time

to call only one witness. But since we are in a defendant’s

position, of course, if we see that it is necessary for re-

buttal testimony, other witnesses might be appropriate.

But my anticipation at this time is a single short witness.

Judge Robinson: And your estimation of the amount of

time it will take for that, sir?

Mr. Halpin: I would say 20 minutes to half an hour for

examination and cross-examination.

Judge Robinson: Very well. So much for the evidentiary

presentations. ,

Gentlemen, how about other needs in connection with

this case, legal argument and that sort of thing? I recog-

nize that it may be somewhat difficult to make estimates

at this time, until the evidence has been presented.

The Court, in an effort to facilitate this litigation as

much as possible, did call on counsel for some preliminary

statements of legal positions prior to its sitting today.

After the evidence has been taken and the case has been

sub- [18] mitted to the Court, the needs for presentation

of written argument, perhaps also all argument, may ob-

viously be quite different.

What are your feelings in that regard, Mr. Stoner?

Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, with that accepted position

of the Court, I would think that closing argument, a half

to three-quarters of an hour, possibly an hour in closing

argument, depending on the extent of the evidence. |

Judge Robinson: Do you expect to file any sort of legal

brief in this case?

Mr. Stoner: As of this moment, we would not. But it

may develop as the testimony comes in that, yes, we would.

Judge Robinson: Very well. Mr. Shurtliff,

Mr. Shurtliff: Your Honor, I would think that most of

the evidence will be in the form of maps, statistics, mat-

ters of that sort, testimony of witnesses, | really don’t

believe that oral argument would need be very extensive,

if at all necessary.

Judge Robinson: How about written briefs?

Mr. Shurtliff: I would think, if the Court please, that

a written brief might well be the best way to set out the

positions of the parties.

Judge Robinson: And your estimate of time demands in

that respect?

Mr. Shurtliff: I really couldn’t estimate. We could [19] do

it rather rapidly as we did at your request for the pre-

trial memorandum. Of course, it would take more effort,

but hopefully it will not take much longer if the Court

directs.

Judge Robinson: Mr. Halpin?

Mr. Halpin: I expect that our oral argument will be

brief, and assuming that the other issues are covered by

the Department, will be specifically directed to the question

of the two at large districts. I anticipate at this time that

I will be able on that oral argument to cover our legal

arguments in that respect without the necessity of a written

brief. But should we file a written brief, we can certainly

file it within any time allowed for the Department to

file theirs.

Judge Robinson: Very well, gentlemen. This is a very

important case. Speaking simply for myself and irrespec-

tive of the present plans of counsel, I may in all probability

request counsel to file written briefs. The importance of

the litigation, the apparent complexities of the case, to say

nothing of the unexpected which cannot be gaugea at this

present time, would all seem to indicate that written sub-

missions of that character may very well be in order. I

do not know whether my colleagues want to express them-

selves on that or not.

(Whereupon, the Court confers. )

Judge Robinson: Our present feeling, gentlemen, is that

we will be sensitive to a need for briefs and also proposed

findings of fact and conclusions of law from you gentlemen.

[20] I announce that at this time for whatever bearing it

may have on the question of timing, that we have under

consideration.

I would like to address this question to all parties. Quite

obviously, with this litigation being filed on July 25th and

the matter having been set for hearing today, there has

been no opportunity for depositions or interrogations or

any other discovery process up to the present time.

Do counsel feel that if an opportunity of that sort were

available it would facilitate the presentations not only

from the Court’s viewpoint but also from counsel’s view-

point?

Mr. Stoner?

Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I might represent to the Court

that by stipulation of parties, depositions of the three

members of the Council Research Staff were taken in New

Orleans last Friday

Judge Robinson: Is that right?

Mr. Stoner: —upon notice that the case was set down

for hearing. We stipulated, and my partner, Mr. Treese

and I, and Mr. Shurtliff, went to New Orleans last week

and started to prepare our case, and depositions were taken.

I don’t believe that any further pre-trial would be necessary

from your standpoint. .

Judge Robinson: Are the depositions transcribed? Are

they available now?

Mr. Stoner: They sir, Your Honor. Yes, they are.

[21] Judge Robinson: And the witnesses deposed, Mr.

Stoner, again were whom?

Mr. Stoner: There were three members of the Council

Research Staff, the Director and two of his assistants.

Judge Robinson: That is a group, as I understand, that

did the planning with reference to the redistricting that

is now before the Court?

Mr. Stoner: That’s right. They did the statistical work

and the preparation of several plans and several alterna-

tive plans. They are all three here in the courtroom, and

we will offer them as witnesses. But their depositions have

been taken and the Government does know the extent of

their knowledge and testimony.

Judge Waddy: Do you plan to have live witnesses to

explain the various maps and diagrams that you say you

have here in addition to the five that you have mentioned?

Mr. Stoner: No, I think these five would be used for

that purpose.

Judge Waddy: They would be used for that purpose?

Mr. Stoner: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Shurtliff.

Mr. Shurtliff: Depositions were taken and they are trans-

cribed. However, they were taken for the purposes of dis-

covery. We did not get into the question with those three

witnesses whether or not they could be introduced for evi-

dentiary [22] purposes.-It is my judgment that if we

could introduce those exhibits—the depositions taken of the

three Research Staff members—that it would limit there-

fore the necessity for in-depth examination when they do

appear, and it would be time-saving in that respect.

Judge Robinson: The depositions were taken at whose

instance?

Mr. Shurtliff: The Government’s, Your Honor. I would

think if we could get some of the information in through

the depositions, it would not be necessary for us to set

out the methods in particular as to how the plans were

arrived at. There is quite a bit of background material

that sets the stage, but

Judge Robinson: Have you discussed this aspect of the

matter of this possibility with other counsel?

Mr. Shurtliff: We have not, Your Honor. One other

matter. On the time element and so forth, we have pro-

posed four exhibits which we have discussed briefly with

counsel for the plaintiffs, and they have some reservations

about stipulating to their use at this time. If it became

necessary for us to put on supporting testimony or to add

to those exhibits, it would take us some time in those

respects. We believe that it would have us considerable

effort if we can arrive at a stipulation as to the those four

exhibits.

Judge Robinson: Now, how soon could you let us know

[23] in that regard?

Mr. Shurtliff: As to whether or not——

Judge Robinson: As to whether a stipulation can be

reached.

Judge Waddy: In other words, if we took a brief recess,

could counsel get together within a reasonable time here

and advise the Court fully as to what they have stipulated

to?

Mr. Stoner: May I be heard on this, Your Honors?

Judge Waddy: Yes.

Mr. Stoner: Counsel for the Government has requested

that 22 exhibits be stipulated to. Now, we have agreed to

stipulate to all of these except four. The four that we

have not agreed to, we don’t feel, are really competent

evidence.

For example, one is a portion of an ad that appeared

in one of the New Orleans’ newspapers. It was an ad that

was placed there by the City of New Orleans announcing

the election, but it does not include the whole ad. It only

includes a portion of the ad. We think the Court should

have the entire ad to really assess the import.

Judge Waddy: Do you have the balance of it?

Mr. Stoner: We do not, Your Honor; we do not. Now,

we objected to the admission of part of the ad. We say

the whole ad should be admitted.

Then there is also a letter from one of the councilmen

[24] who voted against this plan. Incidentally, the plan

before the Court as set out in the complaint was a six to

one vote. There is a letter by one of the councilmen which

we don’t think is appropriate. I understand that the coun-

cilman is here in the City of Washington, and any evidence

that he should have to present, we think he should do it

live,

In addressing ourselves to the question of the use of

the depositions for other than discovery purposes, we

think it is unfair to the Court when the witnesses are here

to use those depositions for evidentiary purposes. In other

words, we have brought those witnesses here so that the

Court can see them in person and assess the testimony

which we will adduce. We believe it is unfair to the Court

to rule on this issue without seeing the witnesses who

will be giving substantially statistical facts to the Court.

Judge Robinson: I think that probably the Court may

be of some assistance to counsel, if you will indulge me.

(Whereupon, the Court confers. )

Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, we are going to take a

recess to enable counsel to see whether they ean finalize

the possibilities of stipulations and other procedures that

may have a tendency to shorten this presentation. I want

to impress on counsel that the only reason for suggesting

that counsel do that so as to shorten this matter is not

only the reason that ordinarily contributes to judicial econ-

omy but also because we [25] simply have this dreadful

time problem that I mentioned before. The Court has tried

to cooperate as far as it can and, of course, it will expect

counsel to do the same thing.

Now, before we take this recess, I would like to ask

Mr. Stoner just a couple of questions, and I am asking

these only out of an abundance of precaution.

If the case were ready for submission to the Court now,

[ would have no idea as to whether the Court could get

its decision out in time to enable the setting of a qualifi-

cation date later this month or indeed anytime soon.

What will be the consequence to the people of New

Orleans if delay in that regard is unavoidable? I would

like you also to tell me just how this matter has been

handled since the point—when was it? In 1971—when the

City Council first began to work on the matter of redistrict-

ing with respect to elections other than the referendums

that were had in two instances? In other words, have there

been instances where the problem of elections in New Or-

leans of some kind or another have had to be handled?

If so, how were they handled, Mr. Stoner?

Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, I understand that

the present law—maybe Mr: Arata or Mr. Salatich can

help me—but I understand that the present law requires

the setting of a time late in August of 1973 for qualification

for the November election. Now

[26] Judge Robinson: Oh, in August you simply set an-

other time instead of setting a time which is the time for

qualification in August?

Mr. Stoner: No, no. The time is set in August, in the

latter part of August, 1973, for qualification. Now, this

would require notice to the electorate as to the last date

for qualifying for the primary election.

Judge Robinson: And the latest possible date in that

regard would be what?

Mr. Stoner: If the Court will indulge me one second.

Mr. Salatich, can you answer that question?

Mr. Salatich: It would be approximately sometime in

the iatter days of January, Your Honor. There is a latitude

in there, a few days.

Mr. Stoner. Of August.

Mr. Salatich: August.

Judge Waddy: Give us the earliest date and the latest

date.

Mr. Salatich: If my memory serves me correctly, it would

be about September Ist, August 26th; somewhere in that

interval. August 27th to September Ist. About a three-day

interval in that connection.

Mr. Halpin: If I might—

Judge Robinson: Just a moment. We will indulge you

in just a bit.

27] All right. Now, what happens if we can’t make that

date?

Mr. Stoner: I believe that—if the Court will indulge me.

(Whereupon, Mr. Stoner and Mr. Salatich confer.)

Mr. Stoner: I am informed, Your Honors, that the Court

could set other dates for the qualification but

Judge Robinson: Which Court?

Mr. Stoner :—the Novembe: election

Judge Robinson: Which Court?

Mr. Stoner: Presumably this Court, Your Honor, in

view of the pendency of this matter. The present status

of the matter is that an election cannot be held now unless

this Court approves this plan.

Judge Robinson: Has there been any elections other than

the two referendums since the matter of redistricting was

embarked upon by the Council?

Mr. Stoner: Yes, I believe there was a national election

that was held last November and——

Judge Robinson: Was it affected by the problem that

is presented by this litigation?

Mr. Stoner: It was not, Your Honor. This is redistricted

to the local elections in the City of New Orleans.

Judge Robinson: In other words, unless the election con-

cerns voting to put in office five members of the Council

(28; from the five electoral districts in New Orleans, you

do not have this problem; is that the answer to it?

Mr. Stoner: That’s correct, that’s correct. It is redis-

tricted just to the five councilmanic districts. Well, really

I guess it is the five councilmaniec districts and the two

at large of the City of New Orleans. So, it is merely a

local issue.

Judge Waddy: Is the November date set by ordinance

or statute or has that been an ad hoc date?

Mr. Stoner: No, that’s been set by the statute of the

State of Louisiana.

Judge Waddy: And if you could not proceed with that

election in November, when would the next one be? Next

November or when?

Mr. Stoner: Well, I am sure there is machinery for the

establishment of

Judge Waddy: For a special election?

Mr. Sioner: For a special election.

May we consult just one moment?

Judge Robinson: Well, why don’t we afford counsel this

opportunity in the recess that I mentioned before. I know

that you gentlemen are as aware as we are that the need

to postpone elections, sometimes even to enjoin elections,

has appeared in some of the litigation with reference to

Section 5 problems. The purpose of this explanation, of

course, was to [29] size up the problem in this case.

Gentlemen, how much time do you think you would need

to accomplish these several purposes?

Mr. Stoner: Minutes.

Judge Robinson: How long a recess do we need to take?

Mr. Halpin, I must apologize. | said a few minutes ago

that the Court would recognize you in due course. Can

this be held until after?

Mr. Halpin: I simply wanted to say for the Court’s

benefit that my knowledge on this is that the District Court

in New Orleans has considered this problem also relative

to moving the qualification date back. When the Louisiana

legislature was redistricted by a special master appointed

by the Federal Court recently, the qualifying date had been

moved back in that instance, and I think there would be no

problem to either this Court or that Court moving the

qualification date without disturbing the election.

Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, we will take a recess. Since

it isn’t quite certain as to just what amount of time you

gentlemen will need, suppose we take a recess until further

order of the Court. When you gentlemen have exhausted

the possibilities of stipulating and the possibilities of any-

thing else that may facilitate the presentation of your

respective positions in this case, would you notify the

Marshal, and as promptly thereafter as may be possible

the Court will then [30] reconvene.

With that the Court will stand in recess until further

order.

(Whereupon, the Court then, at 10:55 o’clock a.m., stood

in recess until 11:30 o’clock a.m., at which time it recon-

vened. )

(During the recess, the fcllowing exhibits were marked

for identification: Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2 and 3; De-

fendant’s Exhibits 1 through 16, 18, and 21 through 24.)

Judge Robinson: Very well. Is there anything further

that you would want to report to the Court on the events

occurring during recess?

Mr. Stoner: I can report to the Court that we have

discussed the request for various stipulations and we will

be able to deal with them. I believe we have made some

headway and we have to resolve some misunderstanding

between counsel, and we have made some headway that

should have the effect of shortening the offer of the

evidence.

Judge Robinson: And during the course of this trial

there, of course, will be continuing opportunity for counsel

to cooperate in this regard.

Mr. Stoner: Yes.

Judge Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Stoner.

Do other counsel wish to report anything to the Court

[31] at this time?

Mr. Halpin?

Mr. Halpin: I would like to respond briefly to what Mr.

Stoner had indicated relative to the Court’s power and so

forth and state our position on that.

I think it is beyond question that the Court does have

power to enjoin the elections. A similar court did so in

the City of Petersburg, and there is no question that that

could be done. Our interest

Judge Robinson: Well, in Petersburg and in other cases

too.

Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir, in any number of cases. I can

cite the Court to a number of District Court decisions in

Louisiana which have done that also.

As a practical matter, what we would like to point out

to the Court is that in Louisiana the incumbents, of course,

are all white. Many of the black candidates will be running

for the City Council perhaps for the first time with the

realistic chance of being able to win. We are very opposed

to having a short period of campaigning. We 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 hack 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 presert

their campaign to the voters as do the incumbents who

are well-known by virtue of their incumbency.

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 Orieans 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?

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.

[ 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

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 this

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 retiect 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 Covrt’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.

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] weographic 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

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 intercoastal 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

East 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.

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 tlie 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.

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 ben 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-

tiun of black population in this area, which I believe on

this exhibit portrays itself as proposed council District B.

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 popuiation of the City is not concentrated

in a core area or in a, if I 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 throughomt-the City.

Now, I would call to the Court’s attention what has been

marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, which is an exhibit too tu

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 councilmanic districts, the City divided into five

councilmanic 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 FE including all of East New

Urleans and portrayed on this map apparently in this area.

These are the five councilmaniec 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

councilmanic district. The first pian 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

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 councilmanie districts.

Now, the other map, which is underneath—I 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 nrepared

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 represents 50 black regis-

tered voters. Each green dot represents 50 white registered

voters.

[44] I would cali 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 nave 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 I 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 in.ormation 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.

The Council of the City is charged with the responsidility

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.

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 elee-

toral polities 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

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 politics in the City

Government in the City of New Orleans. We will show,

unless this Court takes significant action, that that trend

wilt 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.

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 ‘Jentify him for the record?

Mr. Shurtliff: Mr. Tolmach.

Judge Robinson: @nd 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.

Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, the only witness that we in-

tended to 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 that 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 counsel.

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 these

exhibits you refer to. You have referred to three maps.

You have [52] referred to exhibits attached to the Com-

pla

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.