Appendix — Beer v. United States
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Sepreme Cont, L &
i" FILED
DEC 16 1974
APPENDIX
Volume Il J WIOUAEL RODAK, JR CLERK
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER 'l'ERM, 1973
No. 73-1869
Perer H. Beer, Px C. Ciaccio, Josepx V. DrRosa,
CLARENCE QQ. Dupuy, JRr., JoHN D, LAMBERT, JR.,
AND JAMES A, Moreau, Members of the Council of
the City of New Orleans, Acting For and On
Behalf of the City of New Orleans, Appellants
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and
Wiru1AM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United
States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,
and
JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Er AL., Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
DOCKETED JUNE 13, 1974
PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED OCTOBER 15, 1974
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DP «cca eudesgunestend dees neeseeeussess 2
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under Voting
i aa ee a ee ee 8
Answer of the United States of America ............ 35
Motion to Intervene as Defendants ................. 40
Pe Se MED cccccceescccedseveceesessune 53
BRBUGE GE TUGITCGRGED ooo ccccccccccccevccecceceses 54
Transcript of Proceedings ................ceceeeees 08
Witnesses :
St 2 PD. ncccecesseunabauess cousenaas 91
ED onc cu apeededectenteneence 358
Se PD dceeddéndudnéesuecnaneveoes 395
Sah END ccveceeedesceceesseces 324
DT tec cces de cue beduGe ananennune 395
Johnny Jackson, Jr. ..........c cece eee eeees 445
Jomm DD. Lambert, Jr. ...cccccccccccccccccs 469
ON Bis TOO occ ncccsccvcccccccecseess 247
De tt ME sc cade vecuukouedcucudes 171, 294
I hb dh dnwhnnnsenddteennscnseeneeea cueteas 499
Deponents :
Philip C. Ciaecio (excerpts) ............... 584
Cecil W. Carter (excerpts) and Exhibits .... 585
Ss MED os ivan un cuccueeswceeoececes 499
SE Eh SE vn ccccenenéucesvceenesscs 033
Jonathan A. Eckert (excerpts) ........... 570
Johnny Jackson, Jr. (excerpts) ............ 980
John D. Lambert, Jr. (excerpts) ............ 555
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
ii Table of Contents Continued
Defendants’ Exhibit 2: 1961 Redistricting Plan ..... 621
Defendants’ Exhibit 3: Moreau’s Original Redistrict-
ing Plan Proposed January
FPP rerrrerer rr ee 622
Defendants’ Exhibit 4: 1972 Redistricting Plan Ordi-
nance 4796 M.C\S. .......... 623
Defendants’ Exhibit 5: 1973 Redistricting Ordinance
2 So) errr 624
Defendants’ Exhibit 6: Redistricting Plan Proposed
by New Orleans Chapter,
BEE «cccvcuveccucnseones 625
Defendants’ Exhibit 7: Redistricting Plan Proposed
by Orleans Parish Republican
Political Action Council .... 626
(Nore: 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, Pump C. Craccio, JosepH V. Dikosa,
CLARENCE O. Dupuy, Jr., Joun D. LAMBERT, JR.,
anp JAMES A. Moreau, Members of the Council of
the City of New Orleans, Acting For and On
Behalf of the City of New Orleans, Appellants
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and
WruaM B. Saxse, Attorney General of the United
States, Individually and in His Official Capacity,
and
JoHNNY JACKSON, JR., Er AL., Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
APPENDIX
Volume I
344
Jonathan A. Eckert (continued)
Cross Examination
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. Mr. Eckert, you stated, is it correct, that you were
familiar with the black population and voter registration
concentrations within the City of New Orleans prior to de-
veloping Plan 2? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Were you familiar with the location of the
residences of the seven councilmen prior to developing Plan
2? <A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also said that you took into consideration
placing each of these, the five district councilmen, in sep-
arate [440] districts in drawing the plans? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is because you assumed that the councilmen
would not favor a plan in which they were opposed by an-
other incumbent councilman, is that correct? A. Well, that
taken together with the fact that one of the other plans we
presented was the NAACP plan and that had been pre-
viously presented to the Council by the NAACP, so, yes...
Q. And rejected by the Council, is that what you are
saying? A. Yes, essentially.
Q. And is it your assumption that the reason the incum-
bent councilmen wish to be in different districts was that as
politicians, they liked to be re-elected? A. Yes, I guess
that’s possible, I’m sure.
Q. It is true, is it not, that all of the present councilmen
are white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In order to create a plan, is it—strike that. It is true
that most of the councilmen, with the exception of Mr. Sa-
pir, live generally near the Lake in New Orleans, is that
correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not true that in order to divide the City of [441]
New Orleans into five districts in which each of these coun-
cilmen reside in a different district, that for practical pur-
poses, it is necessary to draw these districts from River to
Lake? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not also true, given your knowledge about the
black population concentration in the city, that the inevit-
345
able effect of doing this is to split up and dilute these large
concentrations of black voting strength? A. Could you re-
phrase that question, I didn’t catch it.
Judge Robinson: Do you want the Reporter to read it
back?
Mr. Halpin: Please.
(Whereupon the Reporter read back the pending ques-
tion.)
Witness: Diluted, vis-a-vis what?
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. Using your own definition earlier of dilution, if you
will answer the question? A. Okay. Well, in terms of what
existed—in other words, you see, there isn’t the same op-
tion involved. I was looking at it in the sense of—all right—
in shaping the reapportionment plan to go to census, I
used, for example, District B. You have given a factor
which is the existing district. All right, so therefore, in pur-
suing the change to meet the City Charter requirements as
far as equality of popuulation, you have certain options
where you can go to [442] increase the population. And in
that sense, I think, it is clear cut. But to say that the inev-
itable result of going River-to-Lake, that black voting
strength will be diluted, well, if you have a preponderance
of blacks in one part and a preponderance of whites in one
part, well obviously, the two would tend to cast lots that
would be a dilution of a sort. But when I am think of dilu-
tion, I am thinking in terms of systematically adjusting
the population so as to weaken the existing voting strength
of the existing districts.
Q. Are you saying that your definition of dilution implies
an intention, when you say, systematic an intention to dis-
criminate against black voters? A. Well, no, I wouldn’t
think it would be necessarily an intention. I think the point
I was trying to make was you have to have a given and I
would take the given factor to be the existing district.
346
Q. All right. If you consider the given the factor the con-
centration of black population within the city and black
voter registration which is reflected in various maps and
exhibits, is it not true that when you draw districts from
River-to-Lake, the inevitable result is to have districts in
which blacks are generally in the minority, or at the most
in a bare majority? A. Well, yes, I believe it is fair to
say that.
Q. That’s obvious, isn’t it from the demographic features
of New Orleans? [443] A. Yes, in talking in terms of con-
centration.
Judge Robinson: I would like to ask the witness a ques-
tion. When you referred to majority and minority in your
last answer, were you making a reference to total popula-
tion within the district, or to voter registration within the
district?
Witness: Well, I think, we are...
Judge Robinson: Or both?
Witness: I was thinking in terms of voter registration.
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. You also indicated that if one was to present a plan
to the Council which they would seriously consider, and
possibly pass, that it should to as great an extent as pos-
sible place incumbent councilmen in different districts, is
that correct?) A. Well, Councilman Moreau said not to
worry about whether or not two or more councilmen were
in the same districts, so...
Q. Yes, but you stated a moment ago, didn’t you, that you
assumed that you should put—if you are going to have the
Council pass a plan, you should have different counci!men
in different districts, is that correct? A. Well, I think it
certainly was an alternative for the councilmen in case the
assumption that they wouldn’t want to run against each
other is correct.
Q. And would you consider it that any party or parties
presenting plans to the Council might also be very aware
347
of this [444] political factor? A. Yes, sir, I would think
80.
Q. And don’t you think that the NAACP plan may have
well been a compromise which was the closest think that
black people could do to have their representation without
putting too many councilmen in one district? A. I don’t
know who the compromise was with and I really don’t know
the intent of the NAACP Plan.
Q. But you did state that you used the NAACP Plan as
your standard in terms of—Well, the NAACP Plan had dis-
tricts which were 53-54 per cent blacks and you had consid-
ered those not to be dilutions and used that as your stand-
ard for dilution in developing Plan 2? A. Well, my consid-
eration was that the NAACP at that point was the only
citizens organization which had put forth something and
in my mind, I regard the NAACP as the spokesman for the
black community, and therefore, when we are dealing with
substantial black areas of the city, it seemed to make sense
to follow them as a guide as far as that district went.
Q. It is true, is it not, that under the NAACP Plan there
were several black districts with a majority black voter reg-
istration, whereas in Plan 2, there was only one. A. No,
sir, it is my understanding that the NAACP Plan in Dis-
trict B had black voting majority, although District B, C
& E had population majority.
[445] Q. And however, the voting percentages of blacks
within some of the districts of the NAACP Plan was gen-
erally higher than the voting percentage of whites in other
districts, besides District B, is that correct? A. I believe
the black voting percentage in District C was higher and
District E was higher.
Q. When you said that you used 53 or 54 per cent as
your rough guidelines for dilution, or non-dilution, were
you talking about voter registration or population?
Judge Robinson: Just a moment.
Mr. Treese: May it please the Court, that is not my
memory that this witness said that.
348
Judge Robinson: Well, let’s clear up the question as to
what the witness did say.
Mr. Halpin: All right—I can rephrase the question.
Judge Robinson: All right.
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. On direct testimony, you referred to 53 or 54 per
cent in referring to the NAACP Plan and in general testi-
mony about dilution, were you talking about voter registra-
tion or population at that time? A. Insofar as the anti-
dilution ?
®. Yes. A. Talking about voter registration.
Q. Have you lived in New Orleans all your life, Mr.
[446] Eckert? A. I was born here. I moved to an area in
Louisiana when I was six years old. I came back for col-
lege when I was 18 and I have been there since then.
Q. Are you aware that in the City of New Orleans there
was a long history of preventing blacks from registering
to vote on account of their race?
Mr. Treese: May it please the Court, I think this far
exceeds the direct testimony of this witness; it’s outside
the scope of the direct testimony and I object to it.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Halpin.
Mr. Halpin: If I may respond, the witness indicated that
he considered criterions of dilutions, or ant-dilution fac-
tors. We would submit that when one looks at dilution of
black voting strength, one must look not only to the demo-
graphic factors, but also politica] realities, the debilitat-
ing effect of past discrimination upon existing voting pat-
terns in black political organizations, and so forth and so
on, and I am attempting to elicit from the witness testi-
mony that would indicate that he did not consider these
sorts of factors in avoiding the racial discrimination that
he...
Judge Robinson: Maybe, I don’t recall your question. I
thought your question inquired of the witness as to his
awareness of something, not what he considered.
349
Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. Well then, the next question would
[447] be whether he considered what he was aware of.
Judge Robinson: Did you want to add something, Mr.
Treese?
Mr. Treese: No, Your Honor, I will stand on my pre-
vious objection.
Judge Robinson: The objection will be overruled. Now
let’s restate the question for the benefit of the witness so
he will know exactly what he is cailed upon to answer.
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. All right, are you aware that there has been a long
history in the City of New Orleans of preventing black
people from registering and voting on account of their
race? <A. Well, I have never studied the matter histor-
ically. Of course, one hears all kinds of things. Since I have
been working in the City Government, I haven’t seen any
overt activities of that type and as to how the registrar
of voters or voter registration generally was required prior
to that time. I can only tell you that you read things in
the papers, such as Avery Alexander was thrown out of
City Hall in the ’60’s. I was not aware at the time it was
going on that it was going on and I don’t know the extent.
I don’t know how persuasive the atmosphere was. I am
really not qualified to answer that.
Q. All right, are you generally aware that the City of
New Orleans has a long history of general racial discrim-
ination. A. Well, it’s a southern city and I am aware of
the segregated schools, segregated eating places . . .
[448] Mr. Treese: May it please the Court, although the
witness has answered, I would object to the question and
answer on the grounds that it has absolutely no relevance
to this case.
Judge Robinson: Well, the Court has ruled that it is rele-
vant when it overruled your objection.
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. Did you consider in any fashion the long history of
racial discrimination in the City of New Orleans in de-
350
vising Plan 2? A. Probably to the extent that I was con-
cerned, perhaps, in my own mind about a polarization. My
own perception of the city is that it is becoming more hb-
eral, possibly due to the increase of black voting strength,
possibly due to other factors, more liberal] reaction on the
part of the white community. These are only my assump-
tions, so therefore, that would be the only extent that I
considered that fact.
Judge Waddy: Did that personal attitude of yours re-
flect itself in the plan?
Witness: I wouldn’t say it was a personal attitude re-
flecting itself in the plan.
Judge Waddy: I understood you to say that you were
considering your personal feelings?
Witness: Yes, I mean, in answer to that question, I
didn’t sit down and say, ‘‘What are my feelings to redis-
tricting of the city?’’
[449] Judge Waddy: Now my next question is whether or
not that feeling you had reflected itself in the product that
you produced?
Witness: Well, in the product that was produced was
two districts, just like the NAACP and two districts .. .
Judge Waddy: I don’t believe you’ve answered my
question.
Witness: I am trying to. What I am saying is the plan,
I don’t know if it is a product of any feelings that I have.
Judge Waddy: All right.
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. When you were developing Plan 2, you were aware,
were you not, that the Department of Justice had ob-
jected to an aborted Plan 1 as being racially discrimina-
tory in purpose or effect? A. When we developed the
four plans for Councilman Moreau, the Justice Depart-
ment had overruled the first plan.
Q. Sir, at the time you were developing Plan 2, you did
not know that Plan 1 had—Plan 1 had not yet been ob-
jected to, is that your testimony? A. Yes, sir.
351
Q. So you didn’t—is it your testimony that, therefore
you didn’t take into consideration the factors stated by
the Justice Department in objecting to Plan 1 when you
were developing Plan 2? A. Well, on rejection, the first
objection, I think, was [450] rather general, so insofar as
what the Justice Department said in their first letter of
rejection, it wasn’t available, but—and we didn’t use it.
However, what I am saying is when the thing was—when
the letter of rejection was received by the City, we looked
it over and just comparing what was said to the product
of Plan 2, we were of the opinion that it conformed.
Q. But essentially, Plan 2 was developed before you
studied the objections to Plan 1 by the Department of
Justice, is that correct? A. Yes. _
Q. But in your opinion, Plan 2 doesn’t suffer from the
same sort of racially discriminatory features that Plan 1
did, is that correct? A. No.
Judge Robinson: After you received the decision of the
Department of Justice on Plan 1, were any changes made
in what became Plan 2? 7
Witness: By the staff?
Judge Robinson: By any one.
Witness: Well...
Judge Robinson: Well, first, by the staff, did you ree-
ommend any changes?
Witness: No, that ordinance had been introduced prior
to the rejection.
Judge Robinson: Were any changes made of which vou
are [451] aware in Plan 2 after receipt of the Justice De-
partment’s decision on them or in consequence of that
decision?
Witness: Not that I can say in consequence of.
Judge Robinson: Very well.
By Mr. Halpin.
Q. Isn’t it true that in developing Plan 2 as opposed
to Plan 1, that really, your primary concern was the split-
ting or non-splitting of Algiers and that was really what
you were concerned about in developing that second plan.
352
A. Well, besides splitting Algiers, I believe Plan 1 did
sort of dilute District B’s black voting strength in that it
went into, first, Algiers, and secondly, the fourteenth ward.
Q. Were you concerned about that when you were de-
veloping Plan 2 prior to receipt of the Justice Depart-
ment’s objection letter to Plan 1? A. Yes, we thought it
was a weakness of Plan 1.
Mr. Halpin: No further questions. —
Judge Robinson: Any redirect examination?
Mr. Treese: One question.
Redirect Examination
By Mr. Treese:
Q. Mr. Eckert ...? Yes, sir. | | |
Q.... in your opinion, comparing the voting groups
and statistics that you have studied with regard to the
present [452] districting plan of the City of New Orleans,
which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11, in comparing those statis-
tics with these statistics you know as pertaining to the sec-
ond plan, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3, in your opinion, have
the voting rights of any minority groups of the City of
New Orleans been diluted as a result of the second plan?
Judge Robinson: Mr. Halpin. . |
Mr. Halpin: If you will—no, I will not object to it.
Judge Robinson: You may answer the question. a
Witness: Oh. The existing districts vis-a-vis Plan 2!
By Mr. Treese:
Q. Right. A. I don’t think there has been any dilution,
no.
Mr. Treese: Very well. . .
Judge Robinson: Counsel, are you all finished with this
witness—you have something further, Mr. Shurtliff.
Mr. Shurtliff: Very briefly, Your Honor.
Recross Examination
By Mr. Shartliff:
Q. Mr. Eckert, do I understand from your response to
Mr. Treese’s last question that in comparing Plan 2 to the
353
present plan, you did not believe that Plan 2 affects a dilu-
tion of black voting rights? A. I don’t think that there is
any unreasonable dilution of District B, as I believe. I be-
lieve it has slightly [453] increased black voting strength.
District E is slightly increased. I believe one district is
virtually the same and two districts are slightly less.
Q. That is in comparison to the present plan, the plan
under which the five district councilmen have been elected?
A. Yes.
Q. Now is it your judgment that the present plan does
not affect a dilution of black voting rights in New Orleans?
A. Well, you are talking now in terms of what Mr. Halpin
was talking about earlier, about in terms of concentration
of black population. I believe we have made some sort of
distinction between comparing A with something that exists
and talking about dilution in that regard and talking about
as Mr. Halpin suggested, concentration of population and
dilution in that regard?
Q. Let’s see if I can help you in this way. In your judg-
ment, —help us—why would not the present plan of reap-
portionment in the City of New Orleans be acceptable to-
day? Why need we change it? A. Well, first of all, the
Charter requires that the population be more or less equal
80 it has to be changed to comply with the City Charter.
Q. Are there any other things in the current plan that
need to be changed? A. Well, I don’t follow what you
mean by need to be [454] changed.
Q. Are the population percentages, black and white, or
the compactness features, the adherence to ward lines, are
those factors all acceptable in your judgment? A. Well,
the thing is, the population has to be changed and if it has
to be changed, then all those other factors automatically
take effect.
Q. How about the racial percentages? A. Of the vari-
ous districts?
Q. As presently constituted? A. Well, as I understand
it, if they were legal when they were formed, then those
354
districts would retain their legal effect until such time as
they are changed.
Q. And is it your judgment that they were legal when
they were formed? A. Evidently.
Q. And had anybody ever told you that they were? A.
That they were legal when they were formed?
Q. Yes. A. Well, I believe the court looked at one plan
Council passed in ’60 and rejected that and evidently the
plan that was adopted set aside the plaintiffs because no
one else challenged it, so 1 assume it was legal.
@. And that was in 1960? A. Yes, I believe ’60 or ’61.
[455] Q. Was that in a Staie court? A. Yes, I believe
it did go to the State Supreme Court.
Q. You stated in response to questions by Mr. Halpin
that a given consideration is the present plan, is that cor-
rect? A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Why is that? Did anybody ever tell you that you had
to start with what you had now? A. Well, it seemed like
the logical place to start.
Q. Why? A. Well, there is a certain degree of identity
of people, being in the same district for ten years plus the
other factors that had been considered when that plan was
made, such as the ward boundaries, precinct boundaries,
natural boundaries, etc. In other words, there was a con-
tinuity involved.
Q. Further you indicated that you stated development of
Plan 2 pursuant to Councilman Moreau’s request before
the Attorney General’s decision on Plan 1 had been re-
ceived, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you do that, did Councilman Moreau indi-
cate the reason why he wished you to start work at that
juncture in development of a new plan? A. Well I think
the press and a lot of civic groups had complained about it.
I think Councilman Moreau had felt sort of in a bind be-
cause his name was on it and he in that sense had [456]
nothing to gain or lose by the districts’ looks, so I think
it was sort of a political black eye for him. He wanted to
355
get something that was acceptable. That was my impres-
sion.
Q. Acceptable to whom? A. To the Justice Department
of course.
Q. And to the people of New Orleans? A. Well, I also
made the assumption that anything that would be accept-
able to the Justice Department, or the courts would ulti-
mately be acceptable and accepted by the people. I mean,
I don’t think you can please all the people.
Mr. Shurtliff: I have no further questions.
Judge Robinson: Very well.
Mr. Halpin: If I may ask one or two questions on re-
cross?
Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Halpin.
Recross Examination
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. You answered in response to Mr. Treese’s question
that you didn’t believe that Plan 2 diluted the rights of
black voters, is that correct? A. Mr. Treese, I don’t be-
lieve asked that question. He asked me to compare present
districts, which is that exhibit on the left, and Plan 2
which is the exhibit on the right. )
Q). Is your idea of dilution of black voting strength a
dynamic concept in that it implies blacks being sort of
worse off than they were before? Does that play into your
idea of [457] dilution?
Mr. Treese: I don’t understand that question. Maybe the
witness does.
Judge Waddy: Maybe the witness does.
Witness: I was about to say, really, I don’t understand
what you are saying, worse off?
Judge Robinson: All right, why not ask of the witness
to give his definition of dilution.
. Mr. Halpin: If you will, I will just withdraw the ques-
tion and approach it a different way that I can make it
clear to the witness.
Judge Robinson: All right, very well.
356
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. For instance, Mr. Eckert, you would say that in 1954
the schools in New Orleans were segregated and you would
say today that they were either segregated or not segre-
gated, and it would have very little to do with a change
from one to the other. When you talk about dilution, are
you talking about dilution in the same sense, or are you
talking in terms of a change from one concept, you know,
from one system to another? A. Well,...
Judge Robinson: Wait a minute, just a moment.
Mr. Treese: I’m sorry, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: I saw you rise, Mr. Treese.
Mr. Treese: Yes, I know, I was going to raise the same
[458] objection. Maybe the witness does understand.
Judge Robinson: Very well.
Witness: Are you saying that the schools were totally
segregated in 1954 and in 1973 we have come now to a situ-
ation that there is only de facto segregation, and perhaps,
minority would be less worse off? Is that what you mean
by dynamic?
By Mr. Halpin:
Q. Yes, are you considering the concepts of segregation
and dilution similar in using the examples that I just gave?
A. I am trying to see if I can analogize that in my mind.
Q. Let me try another approach.
To your knowledge, has there ever been a black person
elected to the City Council of the City of New Orleans?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. In your understanding of dilution of black
voting strength, if blacks are no worse off in terms of politi-
cal voting strength and ability to elect city councilmen,
would you consider their votes to not have been diluted?
A. If they were no worse off? .
Q. Right. A. In other words, in a reapportionment
plan, they had identical percentages and rearranged them—
population to accommodate it? Okay.
357
It’s hard to hypothesize something like that. Off hand, I
would say the only answer is it would depend on what the
[459] districts looked like; it would depend on whether or
not I though a black could be elected in the district.
Q. And it would have nothing to do with how bad off
blacks were in terms of voting strength to begin in the—
in your concept of dilution? That would not be a relevant
factor? A. No and using my own concept of dilution, I
am using it as a start, the historical makeup and I guess,
you can say, yes.
Mr. Halpin. That’s all I have.
Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, have you all finished with
Mr. Eckert? May he be excused from this trial?
Mr. Shurtliff: He may, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Eckert, you are welcome to remain,
but you are also free to leave.
Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
(Witness withdrew from the stand, having been excused
by the Court.)
Judge Robinson: Mr. Treese, your appointment in the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, is that 2:00 o’clock
today?
Mr. Treese: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: And I take it from what you said
earlier that no other counsel involved in this trial is also
involved in proceedings to be heard in that Court this
afternoon?
Mr. Treese: That is correct.
Judge Robinson: After having reflected on your colloquy
[460] earlier today, do you see any reason why this Court
cannot continue this trial in view of the fact that you have
Mr. Stoner as your co-counsel and others as your co-counsel
representing the Plaintiffs in this case while you are taking
care of your business in the Court of Appeals?
Mr. Treese: I see no reason why he can’t. I would pre-
fer to interrogate the next witness; if I do not finish, why
Mr. Stoner will continue.
358
Judge Robinson: Well, if we can suspend until you re-
turn; of course, it goes without saying, that you will be
excused to attend your business at the D. C. Court of
Appeals. .
At this point, the Court will stand in recess for five
minutes.
(Whereupon the Court recessed at 12:00 o’clock noon.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The Three-Judge Court reconvened at 12:04 P.M.)
Judge Robinson: Mr. Treese, call your next witness.
Mr. Treese: Councilman Philip Ciaccio.
Whereupon,
Philip C. Ciaccio
took the stand, and being duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Treese:
[461] Q. Councilman Ciaccio, would you state your name
and spell it, please for the Reporter. A. Philip C. Ciaccio
(spelling out) C-i-a-c-c-i-o.
Q. What is your present residential address, sir? A.
7341 Spring Lake Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana 70126.
Q. And what is vour occupation? A. I am Attorney-at-
Law and I am a City Councilman.
Q. Member of the Louisiana Bar? A. Member of the
Louisiana Bar, yes.
Q. Any other Bar Association? A. The American Bar
Association, the New Orleans Bar Association, the Fed-
eral Bar Association.
Q. How long have you practiced law? A. I have been
practicing law 23 years, 1950. .
Q. In your capacity as a City Councilman, what is your
present councilmanic district? A. I presently represent
359
District E and have represented District E since I was first
elected to that office; I took office in May of 1966 and I am
in my second term.
Q. Had you run for public office prior to that? A. Yes,
I have run for public office several times prior to that. I
first ran for the House of Representatives for the same
geographical area in 1969 and lost. I also ran for Council-
man in District E in 1961 and lost. I then ran for Repre-
sentative from the 9th Ward in 1962 and won. And then I
[462] ran for Councilman in 1963 and won. I missed one, I
run for re-election to the House of Representatives in
1964 and was re-elected and then was elected to the City
Council in 1965 and took office in ’66. I was re-elected to
the City Council in 1969, for a term beginning May of 1970.
Each time that I ran for office, I ran from the same geo-
graphical district as is the present District E. I had never
run on a city-wide basis.
Q. What wards are included within District E? A. Dis-
trict E presently is comprised entirely of the 9th Ward of
the City of New Orleans; the boundaries are co-existent.
Q. Now we have had many maps presented and offered in
evidence, Councilman Ciaccio, and they all portray Dis-
trict E in the same fashion as you now see (indicating on
the map). How far out does District E actually extend to
the East? A. District E is a very—extremely large geo-
graphical area; it comprises about one-third of the land
area of the City of New Orleans. Eastward, it runs all the
way to Saint Bernard Parish, which would be along the
River, and also, runs to Saint Tammany Parish in the area
along the lake. So it covers quite a few square miles and on
the East, it is bounded by the two parishes that I have
mentioned. It runs from the Lake to the River. If you were
looking at the map to your right, which would be Plan No.
2, if you follow that land down there and then continued,
instead of that dog leg that takes place there, and continued
down that line, that is the present District B. It [463] starts
at Franklin Avenue to the River and then continues on
along that line which goes into Almonaster and then all the
360
way—well, that’s the River line (indicating by pointing to
the map), but I was going back up north.
Everything east of that is District E, and of course, it
includes the very large growing areas, you know, and all
that, which would be considered suburbs in other cities, but
it is within the corporate city limit of the City of New
Orleans.
Q. For purposes of graphic displays in this case, how-
ever, the vast majority of the population in District EK
exists within the confines of these exhibits, isn’t that right?
A. Yes, that is right. As you get further out, it becomes
very sparsely populated at this time.
Q. Now Councilman Ciaccio, I believe you have just
stated that the present District E—I am now pointing to
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, which is the second plan—the present
District E includes this area (indicating) which under
present Plan 2 is included within District D, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Who is the councilman who represents District D?
A. That is Councilman John Lambert.
Q. Why was it necessary to adjust the population of your
district in the redistricting of the City of New Orleans?
A. Well, the gross pattern of the City has been that as Dis-
trict E has been expanded eastward, as a result of the last
[464] census, I had approximately 18,000 people in my dis-
trict above the norm. So it meant that District E had to be
reduced by approximately 18,000 people. And in order to
reduce the size of District E, the consideration came up as
to how would that be done. It so happened that District E
and District D had a contiguous line all the way from the
River to the Lake and part of District D at one time was
part of District E. The reapportionment in 1960 pushed the
line over to the East as District E was becoming more
thickly populated and areas being developed. In order to
comply with our Charter requirement of having five dis-
tricts of apparently equal numerical population, it was nec-
essary that my district be reduced in size by approximately
18,000 people.
361
Q Are you familiar, sir, with the population of your dis-
trict in terms of racial division? A. Yes, I would say that
my district as presently constituted has a racial makeup of
almost identical 50 per cent white and 50 per cent black.
Q All right. Are you familiar at all with the registration
division by race within your district?’ A. My recollection
would be that the approximate voter registration would
have been 60 percent white and 40 percent black. One of the
reasons, I believe, for the disparity in voter registration
versus population is the fact that very large public housing
projects are located in my district; it [465] has a usually
high percentage of young black children compared to the
total population in the area, so that they are not eligible to
register to vote. But I would say that the registration as I
have approximated it 60 to 40 per cent.
Q. All right, could you identify that housing project?
A. That would be the Desire Housing Project which is lo-
cated District E.
Q. Are you familia: with the population division by race
under proposed Plan 2 within your district, District E?
A. qt would oe, if I recall, correctly, I believe that the popu-
lation would be a majority of black versus white. I think it
would probably be 51 or 52 per cent black and 48 per cent
white, or 49 per cent. It is very, very close, but it changed
about two percentage points.
Q. In the process of running for the Council, in your last
two successful attempts, have you had an opportunity to
analyze your election results? A. Yes, I certainly ana-
lyzed them the day of the election and I have enjoyed a
great deal of confidence and success in both the predomi-
nantly white and black areas of District E and have been
fortunate to obtain an extremely high percentage of votes
in the black—the identifiable black areas, as I’d say, rang-
ing anywhere from 80 to 95 per cent, some precincts 99
per cent.
Q. That is 80 to 99 per cent of the black areas that [466]
have supported you? A. That is correct.
362
Q. Now are you able to estimate what percentage of the
white population in District E supported you? A. I would
say anywhere from 60 per cent to—depending on what
neighborhood, 80 per cent. The last time that I ran for
office in 1969, I won by a very substantial majority; I think
I had 22,000 votes against 5200 for my opponent. So I,
obviously, received a very high percentage of votes in both
areas.
Q. I wonder if you could describe your duties as a City
Councilman? A. Well they fall into several major cate-
gories; one would be purely legislative; we are the gov-
erning body of the City of New Orleans and we do pass all
ordinances and adopt motions and resolutions. We also are
the appropriating agency of the City. We levy the taxes
and we adopt the budget. Of course, the Mayor recom-
mends the budget, but we are pretty much in the same
status as, I would say, the Congress, in that we pass laws;
we are in charge of appropriating the funds. We do not
have any executive responsibility. We do not head any de-
partments. We head what we call a strong Mayor-type gov-
ernment where the Mayor appoints all of the department
heads and the City Councilmen theoretically are purely
legislators. In addition to the function of legislating and
budgetary, I [467] would say that a great deal of the time
of the city councilman is taken up in work involving com-
munity activities, but I don’t mean capital projects, social
projects, social problems, housing problems, matters which
might be considered part of the executive responsibility,
but which, in fact, end up in the councilman’s office whether
the Charter says it should be there or not.
Q. Could you give us some examples of that?
Judge Robinson: What’s the relevance of that, Mr.
Treese?
Mr. Treese: If Your Honor please, opposing counsel has
been inquiring as to the past segregation atmosphere in
the City of New Orleans. They proposed to the Court that
there is evidence in the recent past in the City of New
Orleans of activties which tend to discriminate by race with
363
regard to all of these communities, and particularly with
regard to the minority groups within the City of New
Orleans. I will proffer this, Your Honor, that this witness
has a very honorable record of working substantially out-
side his required duties as a city councilman in an effort
to provide substantial assistance for the minority group
within his district and as such, I would ask that this Court
permit that evidence.
Judge Robinson: Very well. There was a pending ques-
tion. You would save time if you restate the question.
Mr. Treese: Yes, Your Honor, I will restate the question.
By Mr. Treese:
[468] Q. Councilman Ciaccio, I wonder if you could give
the Court some examples of the activities you performed
for your constituents outside your required duties as City
Councilman? A. The area which would be east of the In-
dustrial Canal was substantially and very tragically devas-
tated by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. It’s a predominantly
black area. There was a great deal of loss of property and
loss of life.
In 1966 after I got on the City Council, a concerted effort
was made to attempt to obtain urban renewal funds and
all types of Federal assistance for this area. We had no
enabling State Urban Renewal Legislation in the State of
Louisiana. We were one of the few states in the Nation
that had none. Trips were made to Washington by myself
citizens groups, both black and white, and other officials
and we did obtain funding to the extent of around $350,000
for a feasibility study, although, in fact, we had no real
legal basis for urban renewal projects at that time.
Subsequent thereto, I was quite active petitioning the
State Legislature and participating with the then-Council-
man Landrieu who is now Mayor, to have enabling legis-
lation adopted which allowed the City of New Orleans
to become eligible for urban renewal funds. That legisla-
tion was adopted. The only ongoing urban renewal project
iw the City of New Orleans is in my district in the 9th
364
Ward. We have been able to maintain many millions of
dollars for funds for capital improvements in this area.
[469] There were many, many meetings involving literally
thousands of people who attended to explain the program,
what it would do for the area, to rehabilitate the homes
and to provide social advantages and economic advantages
and I would say that probably 60 per cent of my time
from 1966 to ’70 was spent in problems involving the
lower 9th Ward and the Desire Housing areas, and some
other parts of the predominantly black areas of District E,
which were in a tremendous need of improvements, both
physical and social, resulting from expenditures and other
activities that preceded my taking office. Two of the Fed-
eral Model Cities areas are in my district. I have worked
very closely with the Model Cities Program. I have served
on the board of directors of Total Community Action which
was the New Orleans Community Action Program. I’ve
been on the board of directors of the Social Welfare Plan-
ning Council and have attended many meetings with the
KAP Neighborhood Organizations which were organized
back in the middle ’60’s and which have produced a great
deal of tangible advantages for the people who live in
District E.
Mr. Treese: Thank you, no other questions on that point.
By Mr. Treese:
Q. Now Councilman Ciaccio, with regard to the Council’s
consideration of Plan 2, were you apprised of any alterna-
tive plans at that stage? A. Well, my recollection is that
Plan 2 was introduced [470] by Councilman Moreau. I
reviewed Plan 2 at the time that it was introduced and
in my opinion, it presented a fair method of reapportion-
ing of the City of New Orleans. | remember the only
reason we were called upon to reapportion in the first
place is because of the change in population patterns be-
cause some of the districts had become too small or too
large with regard to numerical basis. I reviewed that plan
and thought it was a fair one. If I recall correctly, there
365
was only one amendment made and that was to straighten
out the line which now you see separating District B—
District E and District D. There was one precinct which
had a dog leg in it and that line was straightened out.
But other than that, the plan that you see there, (indi-
cating) is identical to the one that Councilman Moreau
introduced.
Q. Were you aware of the plan presented by the NAACP
which has been introduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 50? A.
Yes, I was. I had been aware of it for several months.
It had been first presented to us during the hearings that
we had on the first redistricting plan.
Q. And did you personally have any objections to that
plant A. The main objection I had is as councilman from
District E is that I thought that the line which ran along
the River from west to east had no logical basis, in fact.
It carved out a sliver of District E. It so happened that
[471] that sliver which as I recall ran from Saint Claude
Avenue to the River would have removed just about every
white resident and white voter from that portion of Dis-
trict E which was located along the River, and it appeared
to me to be a type of gerrymandering which I thought did
not meet the guidelines of the Justice Department, the
Voting Rights Act, or any other type of guidelines. Except
for that particular peculiarity of the plan which existed
in Exhibit E, the only other thing that I noticed of a drama-
tic change was that it placed Algiers in District E rather
than District C and neither geographically or historically
or otherwise had Algiers been a part of District D. I be-
lieve the plan that we finally adopted left District A and
District B the same as in the NAACP plan and District
E would have only been changed to remove the elongated
line running east-west to the picture that you see on the
second plan (indicating by pointing).
Q. (Counsel indicating on the map.) A. That’s correct.
Q. In other words, it would have preserved the Missis-
sippi River front under District E, Plan 2, and under the
NAACP plan, it would have deprived District E of the
366
Mississippi River front? A. Yes, and I might say that
the people living along that area actually have been the
oldest residents of District E, the 9th Ward, actually began
in that area there. There are [472] families that have been
living there for several generations, whom they are prob-
ably over a hundred years old. There is a good deal of
neighborhood identification with the 9th Ward as District
E is called and there was in my mind no logical basis for
removing that entire area from District E in the manner
that was being proposed.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Treese, when you reach a point
where it would be convenient to recess for lunch, you let
me know.
Mr. Treese: 1 have, perhaps, two more questtions, then I
think I can go to the Court of Appeals and let Mr. Stoner
take over.
By Mr. Treese:
Q. Mr. Ciaccio, did you have deliberations with Mr. Lam-
bert as your adjoining councilman of District D with re-
gard to division of population to achieve the balance as
required? A. Councilman Lambert and I spoke on pos-
sibly one or two occasions. I knew that 18,000 people had
to be removed from my district. The logical method of
doing it as far as I was concerned would be to add it
on to Councilman Lambert’s district which was contiguous
to mine. The question then arose, how would you do that.
The method in which you see it done in Plan No. 2, the
one that is present before the Court, actually transferred
from District E to District D an area that is compact
that was contiguous to the then-existing District D, [473]
population wise, it pretty much retained the same type of
theoretically ideal ratio which then existed in District D
which was 50 per cent white and 50 per cent black. The
net effect of it was that it transferred to District D more
whites than blacks, so that I ended up under that plan
with a larger black population and voter registration than
367
I have under my present district. But it appeared to be
a compact, logical way of doing it, both geographically,
historically, neighborhood wise, etc. And we really had no
controversy, fight over it; this was something that was
basically what the staff recommended and I certainly agreed
to it. There was one precinct that was a little different
which we changed and that was the only change made.
Q. One last question, have you as councilman ever ex-
pressed the opinion or a vote on any of these plans with
regard to whether or not two or more incumbent council-
men shall be forced to run within a single district? A. No,
there has not been any overriding consideration. I gave
no instructions to Mr. Eckert or to Mr. Pezant with regard
to whether or not councilmen should be combined in dis-
tricts or not. That plan does not combine any of the in-
cumbent district councilmen, but I certainly—I never at
any time gave any instructions that that should not be the
case. If it came out that way, then, of course, fortunately
or unfortunetely, may the best man win. But I did not
instruct [474/499] the staff to in any way draw up a plan
which would not throw councilmen in an election against
each other.
Mr. Treese: Your Honor, that is all.
Judge Robinson: We will suspend the examination of
the Councilman at this point until you are able to return
this afternoon, Mr. Treese.
Mr. Treese: Your Honor, I have no quarrel with Mr.
Stoner protecting the Plaintiffs’ rights on cross-examina-
tion in my absence.
Judge Robinson: Is that agreeable to counsel?
Judge Waddy: Do we understand from that that you
have finished your direct-examination?
Mr. Treese: That is correct, Your Honor.
Mr. Shurtliff: We have no objections, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Very well, we'll resume after the lunch-
eon recess with cross-examination of the present witness.
Just before we take that recess, it might be helpful if
counsel knew that one member of the Court has an en-
368
gagement that he must fulfill in connection with other
litigation before the Court at 4:00 o’clock this afternoon
and so it will be necessary to make the adjournment at
4:00 o’clock at that time.
At this point we’ll stand in recess until 1:45 this after-
noon.
(Whereupon the Court recessed at 12:35 P.M.)
{500} Mip-AFTERNOON SESSION
(The 3-Judge Court reconvened at 2:00 p.m.)
Judge Robinson: Mr. Shurtliff. Councilman, would you
resume the stand, please.
(Witness resumed the stand.)
Cross Examination
By Mr. Shurtliff :
Q. Councilman Ciaccio, you testified that because of the
population statistics, your District E had to lose some 17
or 18 thousand persons in order to achieve the ideal, is
that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you discuss with other councilmen, or any coun-
cilmian in particular where those 17 or 18 thousand persons
should go? A. Yes, there was one, or possibly two dis-
cussions with Councilman Lambert. Neither conversation
took longer than, I would say, five minutes. The general
tenor was whether or not the location of the areas of Dis-
trict E that would be transferred to District D, and we
were both presuming that I would transfer, or the line
would be transferred from E to D, whether it would come
from the Riverfront area, or from the area that would
be to the north of that map (indicating), which would be
adjacent to the Lake. This was the extent of the conver-
sation. It so happens that [501] both areas have a racial
balance of almost identical proportions, that both of them
—they are different economic levels, but it so happens
369
that in both areas, you have a combination of both Black
and White residents. So that if you drew a line in either
place, you would have pretty much the same effect as you
see with the plan that’s presently on the board.
Q. Was it your judgment that the 17 or 18 thousand
persons that you had to give up from District E that the
balance should be White or Black, or mixed, or what
was your judgment along the line of racial characteristics
of the group that would be dispersed to other districts?
A. Well, since my district was basically evenly divided
populationwise, it was my feeling that there should be
no great disparity with regard to the transferral of either
an excessively large number cf White or Black voters, or
residence in order to maintain what is theoretically the
ideal situation, that is, with neither group being in the
minority. I had a 50-50 population and if I transferred 18
thousand which would be close to that ratio, I’d be main-
taining pretty much the same population ratio as presently
in existence in District E. As it so happens, the way it
was drawn up, there were more White residents and White
voters transferred from E to D than there were Black.
Q. Was it your judgment that your district, District E
[502] with its approximate 50-50 characteristic was an
ideal district? A. I would say it was one of the fairest
methods that I’ve known and it was certainly at that time
theoretically meeting all the criteria of the law insofar as
popultion was concerned. It was not by design; I inherited
District E. I ran from that district and it so happened
that the population was that way, and I personally thought
that it would be fair to maintain it, at least in an approxi-
mate ratio, populationwise, which then existed.
Q. Was it your judgment that Districts A, B, C and D
should also be maintained in their approximate racial char-
acteristics? A. No, it was not. And...
Q. Why was it not? A. Well, Districts A, B and C
were—well particularly B and C had different apportion-
ment problems as I did, so they had to gain people. I
really was not particularly familiar with the population
370
ratios in those a’stricts, nor particularly familiar with the
population ratios in District D. I was very familiar, by
virtue of having been in office in District E for quite a
number of years, as to what the population ratios were
in my district, but I did not have any very strong feelings
or opinions, or really a great reservoir of knowledge as
to the racial makeup of the other [503] districts. It was
my impression that District B, which is pretty much—
well, it’s been changed somewhat by the plan, but that
District B had a majority of both Black residents and
registered voters, even though Councilman Sapir, elected
from that district in 1969, is White. I knew that District
A had a majority of White population of voters. But if
I had to give you the exact ratios, I could not have given
them to you then, and probably, couldn’t give them to you
now unless you gave me a chart and I could refer to the
figures.
Q. But did you not study the figures at the time you
decided whether or not to support the redistricting plans
cast in the form of ordinances? A. Yes, sir, I reviewed
them.
Q. And did you review them from the perspective, from
at least one perspective, of determining whether or not
there had been a change in the racial composition of the
districts other than your own? A. I observed them insofar
as to making any individual specific determination as to
exactly what effect they had on the other districts. It was
not something that was indelibly impressed in my mind.
I would say that insofar as Plan Two was concerned,
the one that is presently before the Court, that I do have,
I think, a great familiarity with those figures at this time
insofar as what the net effect was. But I would say that
[504] primarily, my first attention was directed as to how
would we rearrange the population in District E and then
hopefully, how would we come up with a pian for the
remainder of the City of New Orleans that would be fair
and equitable. I did not see any great problem in doing
371
that for my district. I did see problems in other districts,
but that did not specifically apply to District E because
of the way it was constituted.
Q. So it was your judgment that the racial composition
of District E should not be seriously changed by any re-
districting plan? A. By virtue of the fact that it was
then 50-50, almost mathematically that way, and theoretic-
ally, there was no minority in District E, that we had an
equal number of Black and White residents in District E.
I think this was the only one that was that way in the
City.
Q. Do you know whether any other city councilmen had
a similar judgment with respect to his own district? A.
As to whether or not it should stay exactly the way it was?
Q. Right.
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I would have to object to this
question. The witness can testify as to his own judgment
I don’t know that he is competent to testify as to the
judgment of other members of Council.
Judge Robinson: I thought the question was, ‘‘Do you
know [505] whether... ?’’, was that it?
Mr. Shurtliff: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: He may answer that question. If he
doesn’t know, all he has to do is say he doesn’t.
Witness: I don’t know exactly what was in the mind
of the other councilmen, although...
Judge Robinson: You’ve answered the question.
Witness: I don’t know exactly what was on their minds,
sir.
By Mr. Shurtliff:
Q. Councilman Ciaccio, you stated that the NAACP Plan
which you studied from your point of view had at least
two things wrong with it; let us say, (1) that it split
Aigiers on a basis that was not historical and also dealing
with the division of persons along the River from District
E, is that correct? A. The NAACP Plan did not split
Algiers, I don’t believe; I think it placed Algiers in Dis-
trict D.
372
Q. Isee,I’m... A. Yes. . . ;
Q. I’m sorry, I misspoke. It combined Algiers in a fash-
ion? A. Yes, it kept it as a unit, but placed it in District
D where it had never been before, historically, or other-
wise. Algiers had been originally in District C; it is [506]
now in District A; it had never been in District B and I
can see no reason why it would be combined with District
D. .
The other part which, frankly, I considered more ob-
jectionable from my own personal standpoint was the man-
ner in which the east-west line was drawn along the River-
front which was, apparently, an attempt to remove from
District E an area which was just about, | would say,
ninety percent White in vote in population and in voter
registration and I could see no logic for drawing ie une
that way. It’s like taking a sliver. It certaimiy violated the
guidelines of compactness and reasonableness, and to me,
that was one that didn’t make sense, other than to remove
those voters from District E. / .
Q. Algiers under the current plan of apportionment is
in District A. is that not correct, sir? A. That is correct.
Q. How long has it been combined with the other portion
of District A? A. I think since the last reapportionment,
shich I believe, was in 1960. .
“@ And before that, sir, where was Algiers? A. In Dis-
"2 ‘ind for hov- long a period was it in District C? A.
Since the City Charter was adopted in 1954. 2
Q. Before that, there was not councilmen by districts?
A. Before that, we had a commissioned council form of
[507] government where the councilmen were elected city-
wide and served as department heads in addition to being
legislators; they were—one was head of the Parkways Com-
mission; one was the head of Streets, one was head of
Finance. But that form of government was done away
with when the Home Rule Charter was adopted in 1954
and the present form of government was adopted by the
people.
373
Q. And how many commissioners were there under that
form of government? A. {i think there were seven, the
Same number as we have now.
Q. They were all elected at-large? A. That is my—yes,
they were all elected at-large, sir, from my recollection;
I was rather young at that time, but I do recall that being
the case.
Q. There have been two reapportionments under a 5-2
plan prior to this? A. No, one; this is the second reap-
portionment.
Q. Bui the system was first inaugurated in 1954? A. 54,
that would have been the first time that the district council
form of government was created. And then as a result of
the 1960 census, there was a reapportionment and this
would be the result of the 1970 census.
Q. But when we talk about history in ierms of the 5-2
plan, or in terms of drawing the councilmanic districts
[508] on the basis of wards, we are in no respect going
back further than 1954, is that correct, sir? A. That would
be correct insofar as councilmanic districts are concerned ;
although, insofar as ward representation is concerned, you
go back eighty years. Our senators and legislators and
representatives were elected by wards and have been since
1921, or prior to that time. That was the basis of repre-
sentation in the state legislature and our City Charter set
out the councilmanic districts by wards and precincts. |
Q. At the present time, the House of Representative dis-
tricts are not by ward, is that correct? A. They are desig-
nated by wards and precincts, but they cross ward lines.
Some of them are totally within—for instance, in District
E, we have two representatives that are totally within the
Ninth Ward and we two representatives that we share with
adjoining wards. It depends on the size of the wards; some
wards have their own representatives; some have combined
them as the lines were redrawn.
Q. You stated that the NAACP Plan in the way it dealt
with District E created what you characterized as a sliver
along the Riverfront, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
374
(Mr. Treese entered the courtroom at this point and
resumed seat at counsel table. )
[509] Q. And that it removed basically ninety percent
White persons from District E and placed them in its pro-
posed District D, is that correct? A. That is correct; it
might have been even a higher percentage than that.
Q. In your judgment, was that a gerrymander? A. It
appeared to be gerrymandering White voters out of District
E, yes.
Q. And is that your definition of ‘‘gerrymandering’’,
taking a block of voters of one race or another out of one
district? A. If the line that is drawn has no apparent
logic or reason, other than to transfer a certain group of
individuals from one geographic area into another one,
then the term that has normally been used when you do
that is ‘‘gerrymandering’’.
Q. And if it has no apparent purpose other than to do
that, to achieve that? A. This is correct. If there was
some geographical reason, some historical reason, if there
was any reason other than the only one that was apparent
to me because of my familiarity with my district, I could
characterize it otherwise; but I would have to say that that
area has never been, councilmanicwise, drawn that way.
The neighborhoods that were being removed have been
traditionally joined together by [510] mutual interests, eco-
nomic, religious, social, everything else, and to bodily re-
move them from an area where they been for an excess
of a hundred years and move them to another district did
not seem to have any particular logic behind it.
Q. Wouid you believe the compatibility of socio-economic
or ethnic backgrounds forms a basis for keeping groups
together? A. Well, you have a community of interest in
that area involving churches, schools, civic activities, play-
grounds, a whole gamut of normal inter-relationships be-
tween people who have lived in an area for years and years
and I think that there is a community of interest between
those «ple who live along the Riverfront and the people
375
who would be going north towards Florida Avenue. You
have had a dramatic change in population patterns in my
district in the past ten years with the line moving towards
the River where that area has become predominantly Black,
whereas ten years ago, it might have been 50-50. This is a
population pattern, a trend that has been taking place.
Q. Then it’s your judgment that the line is drawn in the
proposed NAACP Plan to create a district of approxi-
mately 118 thousand, 5 hundred persons was not a sufficient
purpose to override what in your judgment was a gerry-
mander? A. Let me state my position more succinctly.
I’m not (511) accusing the NAACP of any nefarious pur-
pose in drawing the line that they drew. The effect of draw-
ing that line was to transfer an area that is basically ninety
percent White into another district. The NAACP may have
felt it had very good reasons for doing that and I know
the officers and directors and have a great deal of respect
for them.
On a purely logical basis, without getting into any dis-
pute over race or gerrymandering, or anything else, I think
I could sit down with them and say that I think the line as
on the so-called Moreau Plan is a more logical line than the
one they drew. Now reasonable men might differ over that.
It isn’t something that is a mathematical certainty, but in
my best judgment as someone who has represented this
area since 1962 in one capacity or other, which would be
some twelve years, I did not feel that it would serve a useful
purpose to extract and remove that entire area from Dis-
trict E. The people from the NAACP who drew up the
plan may have thought it would have. We have a difference
of opinion and I think that it could be left that way with-
out me accusing them of intentionally trying to do some-
thing that was wrong. Certainly, you could draw up fifteen
plans and never have everybody agree on every aspect of
it. I don’t question their integrity or their reasons, but I
did question the effect.
Q. Councilman Ciaccio, have you ever observed or seen
a redistricting proposal that generally ran east to west
376
[512] as opposed to north-south? A. Yes, I have seen
some proposals than ran east-west.
Q. And what was your judgment as to those proposals?
A. As far as I was concerned, there were two drawbacks
with those type of proposals; (1) you were making a rather
dramatic change in the existing general makeup of the dis-
trict lines which theoretically have worked very well for
both the White and Black residents of the City of New
Orleans. It was an extreme departure from what had been
our form of government insofar as the governmental struc-
ture is concerned since 1954.
The other objection that I had to it, and I can’t recall avy
of them specifically, but under the present method of coun-
cilmanic districts, we have been able to avoid in New Or-
leans the polarization that has taken place in many other
cities. For instance, in District E, and this would apply to
many other districts, I have a combination of poor Whites
and poor Blacks. I have middle-class Whites and I have
middle-class Blacks, and I have fairly wealthy Blacks, and
I have the finest and wealthiest Black subdivision in the
City of New Orleans, all in District E. I canot afford to
become parochial and say, ‘‘ Well, I’m just going to vote
for my White constituents and ignore the Black ones’’, or
vice versa. You walk a very fine line to keep everybody
happy, but as a result of it, you have a much broader per-
spective because you don’t just represent one segment of
the community.
[513] Now if you draw the line east-west, you’ll end of
having all White districts and all Black districts, although
it would be very difficult to create two all-Black districts
without some very unusual configurations because the hous-
ing patterns in New Orleans are extremely integrated. We
just don’t have housing patterns that you have one section
that’s all Black and one section that’s all White, except for
possibly some of the housing projects in some areas of the
Lakefront.
377
In my own opinion as a public official, I honesily believe
that the interests of all the citizens of New Orleans are
better served by having a councilman representing all of
the segments of the City, rather than one, and although
ii has caused me some person grief on occasions because
obviously, there are times when I would vote for appropria-
tions for Black neighborhoods, and that has been the ma-
jority of times, when some of my White constituents got
unhappy, and vice versa. The net result has been as long
as they think you’re doing it fairly, that we’ve produced
some fairly good government insofar as the City of New
Orleans is concerned and I really believe that the east-west
type of redistricting would produce a type of polarization
that New Orleans doesn’t have and doesn’t need.
Now this is a philosophical view point that I have and is
one that I have made on the basis of my lifelong residence
in the City; I’ve lived there with my wife and my [514] ten
children; I’ve been in government for many, Many years
and I just think that I am entitled to have some opinions
along those lines.
Q. Is it your judgment that in your District E that you,
as you stated, has within its confines both races and various
economic levels, that those persons, those groups have dif-
ferent interests, different desires from city government?
A. They have—they all have the same desire to get the
maximum city services that are possible. They all want the
best schools and the best streets and the best playgrounds
and the best garbage collection—everybody wants that.
Then it’s a question of how do you balance who gets what.
I have some areas in my district that are way behind the
times, that were neglected for many, Many years and it’s
going to take a lot of catching-up for them to catch-up with
some other parts of the City, and these areas happen to be
basically Black, and we’ve been trying to catch-up. But I
do think that I have been able to, for instance, vote for
literally millions and millions of dollars of projects in my
district which went solely into all-Black neighborhoods with-
378
out suffering political retribution by my White constituents
because, in fact, I have tried to balance the interests of all
parties and have also tried to educate those people who
already have playgrounds and paved streets, et cetera, that
it’s fair and equitable to go into a low economic area and
pave the streets [515] for free, which is the first time in
the history of New Orleans that we’ve done that.
This is the philosophy of go: ernment. I don’t know
whether it’s pertinent to this case, but it’s one that I hold,
and I really believe that if we had an all-Black council over
the past four years, instead of an all-White council, we
could not have voted one penny more of appropriations,
we could not have voted as much appropriations for the
Black areas of New Orleans as this Council did. I think
the fact that we were constituted by accident and by elec-
tion, we had the freedom to do some things, that possibly, an
all-Black council could not have done.
Now again, we’re getting into another field, but this is
my strong feeling in this matter.
Q. I am not sure I understand the last, the all-White
council has been able to devote a greater proportion of this
City’s assets to needs in Black areas than would in your
judgment an all-Black council because the Black council
might feel other pressures? A. I’ll give you an example.
If you had a councilman, a district councilman, in the east-
west configuration, along the Lakefront who represented
ninety-nine percent White and he was called upon every
week to vote for funds to build health clinics, to pave streets
for free, to do all kind of things in an all-Black neighbor-
hood, sooner or later, his all- [516] White voters are going
to decide that he wasn’t the type of councilman they wanted
and what was he doing for them. Now this is just a fact of
political life. We have not had that type of voted reaction
in New Orleans. We have had almost a unanimous vote
on every appropriation and there has been a great magni-
tude in the past four years dealing with capital improve-
ments in very poor Black neighborhoods and we’re had no
379
reaction publicly from the White electorate. We’ve had
some grumbling, but we’ve done, I think, a fairly good job
of educating the people of New Orleans that the money was
being spent where it was needed and it was proper to do
so. And I think we were able to do this because we happen
to represent a multi-racial constituency.
If you went to the east-west configuration and say,
‘‘We’re going to create by design some kind of way, all-
White districts and all-Black districts, and we’re going to
guarantee that we’re going to elect Black councilmen be-
cause we have created an all-Black district’’, then I sin-
cerely question whether he could get as much done if it
were redistricted that way as was done by the present
Council. Now I’m not trying to say that the Council should
stay all-White and I don’t think it will stay all-White. But
I don’t believe our job in redistricting required us to create
irregularly-shaped districts solely for the purpose of erect-
ing either Black or White and I think it’s possible under
the plan that [517] you have there (indicating by pointing)
for Blacks and Whites to be elected.
Q. Is an east-west—an east-west plan would be irreg-
ularly-shaped districts in your judgment? A. Not neces-
sarily, no. No I imagine you could come up with lines that
would be fairly straight, if that were the criteria. You
wouldn’t have to zigzag all over the place. I think you
could probably come up with districts that on their face
would look as regular as those do. Yes, I’d agree with that.
Q. You indicated a few moments ago that another objec-
tion that you had had to east-west lines was that the lines
that are currently operative have worked pretty well for
Black and Whites in the City since they have been used, is
that correct? A. I believe that the governmental structure
of the City, insofar as the councilmanic districts that pres-
ently exist and as proposed, have worked fairly well for the
City of New Orleans, both Black and White, yes.
Q. What do you mean by ‘‘worked well’’? A. Well,
presently and over for the—I would say—the period of
380
time that I have been in the city government, we have had
what I would consider a high level of racial harmony and
cooperation. We have also been able to implement social
programs throughout the City which were somewhat revo-
lutionary [518] in scope for a southern city, such as the
Public Accommodations Act, which we adopted back in
1970; I think about the only one, possibly, in the South,
there may be one in Atlanta. We have been able to do a
great deal with the federal programs which require seed
money from the City of New Orleans to enhance the health
and the physical well-being of those Black areas which had
been neglected for hundreds of years and we’ve done this
without having a great deal of governmental, or other type
of upheaval. We’ve had a fairly cooperative, calm progres-
sive City. We think we’re on the way to a new era. We
have a man who is certainly extremely conscious of the
rights of minorities. We have tremendously increased the
participation of Blacks in the city government insofar as
employment is concerned. It’s probably up to forty percent
of the total work force.
What I’m saying is the type of government that we
presently have is working as well as any I know in the
United States insofar as the problems of taking care of
those things which need to be attended to. Now we don’t
have a monumentum but I think we’ve done a fairly good
job.
Q. You stated that you believed that under the present
plan, Plan Two, or the plan before the Court that Blacks
could be elected? A. Yes.
Q. In any or all districts, or where? Would you [519] in-
dicate in your judgment where Blacks could be elected?
A. Well, if you look solely at numbers, and I believe we
went through this dissertation a little bit in my deposition,
District B under this Plan has a numerical preponderance
of Blacks, both voters and population. Theoretically, if
every Black voter voted for a Black candidate, then you
would have a Black elective in District B. I don’t think it
381
will happen that way. I don’t think there is a monolithic
voting pattern in New Orleans today.
District E, where I reside, does not have such a tre-
mendous disparity in voting strength that it is inconceivable
that a Black candidate could not be elected from District
E. It’s possible. I think that the result of the election in
Atlanta yesterday indicates that a Black candidate can wiu
in a city which has a majority of White voters.
I’m not too familiar with the voting percentages, or the
population percentages in Districts C and D under the
new plan. But I think the only place where you have a tre-
mendous White majority under this new plan is District
A; it’s probably like eighty percent, if I recall correctly. But
the rest of them—theoretically, if the public voted on the
qualifications of the candidates and the candidates who of-
fered themselves, be they White or Black, met the require-
ments of the voters, they should get elected. And I think
that this trend has been established in the City of New
[520] Orleans by virtue of the fact that we have in city-
wide elections elected a judge for the Criminal District
Court recently, a judge for the Fourth Cireuit Court of
Appeals, we have the president of the school board, all of
whom are Black and who won at citywide elections where
the White registration certainly was much larger than the
Blacks. So I don’t think the mere fact that you look at the
percentages means that a Black candidate can’t win if he’s
the best candidate.
Q. Was Judge Moriele (phonetic spelling) the best can-
didate? A. Was he? Yes, he was.
Judge Robinson: Counsel. I think you’re getting a little
far afield; let’s stick to the issues in this case.
By Mr. Shurtliff:
Q. On what do you base your conclusion that persons—
voters in New Orleans do not vote on a racial basis? A.
Well, one of the conclusions was some of the historical
facts that I recited just a moment ago. These are instances
that have happened certainly in the last four to six years
382
where Black candidates have run on a citywide basis and
have defeated White candidates. This is certainly an indi-
cation that the Whites are not voting as a block and the
fact tuat in District B in the last councilmanic election, a
White won for city councilman, although there were a ma-
jority of Black voters in District B who indicated that the
[521] Blacks were not voting as a block in the City of New
Orleans. And I don’t believe you’re going to see that hap-
pen unless some politician who takes a very antagonistic
demagogic position actually forces either the Whites or
the Blacks to vote as a block as a matter of reaction.
It will not happen by virtue of their present inclinations.
It might happen if someone would tell the Black voters, as
happened back in 1962, ‘‘I don’t want your vote’’. If you
do that, then certainly, they are not going to vote for. But
right now everybody is seeking everybody’s vote. No one
can afford in the City of New Orleans to ignore the votes
of either the Black or White community because you just
can’t get elected that way.
Q. You stated that in 1962, a candidate for mayor in-
dicated to the Black community that he did not want their
vote? A. That’s correct.
Q. And was the result a block vote? A. Sure was. The
Whites voted for him; the Blacks voted the other way and
I happened to lose that election; I was running for council-
man and I happened to be on the other side. I got most of
the Black votes, but I didr’t win the election. That’s the
last time that it’s happened to my knowledge in the City
of New Orleans.
(). You indicated that a Black has been elected to [522]
the Crimina! District Court, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. In an at-large election? <A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the first election in which that candidate
had run? A. To my knowledge. He may have run for
some lesser office, but that’s the first time I recall. He
was appointed to the Bench and then ran for election on
a citywide basis and was elected overwhelmingly.
383
Q. Had he not run for the City Council at-large two
years previous? A. No, J’m speaking of Judge Augustine.
To my knowledge, he did not run for councilman at-large.
Q. I see. A. I’m speaking of Judge Israel Augustine,
Judge of the Criminal District Court. Now Judge Moriele
who is now a Judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
will be taking office shortly. He did run for councilman
at-large in the election of 1969 and ouly lost by a few
hundred votes out of hundreds more or thousands. I would
say he only lost by—I’m guessing, but I think around—
certainly less than a thousand votes.
Q. Was Judge Augustine supported by the White com-
munity in his election? [523] A. Yes, he was. When I
say the White community, he was supported by the White
—well, he had to be supported by everybody; he won a
resounding victory and...
@. Was he... excuse me. A.... and it had to com-
prise both White and Black voters to win by that large
majority.
Q. Was he endorsed by White political organizations?
A. Yes, he was.
(). Was he endorsed by White political leaders? A. He
was endorsed by White political leaders, by White civic
ieaders, by Black political leaders, by Black civie leaders.
He was an outstanding individual who was endorsed and
supported by a very wide range of people in the City, yes.
And I think he was endorsed by the local newspapers.
(). And he is on the Criminal District Court? A. Yes.
That’s the Court of General Jurisdiction. In New Orleans
we have criminal and civil courts, and this would be the
Criminal District Court.
@. How many judges in the Criminal District Court in
New Orleans are there? Do you know, sir? A. I think
there are approximately—I believe there are ten. I could
be wrong.
Q. And the position to which Judge Moriele was just
recently elected, but has not yet assumed office, was what,
sir? [524] A. Fourth Cireuit Court of Appeals, that
384
would be our appellate court; that’s the second highest
court, right below the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Q. And he has previously run for the City Council at-
large? <A. That’s correct. —
Q. An he lost that election? A. Yes. He had prey ious vs
also, been elected to the state legislature. He was appointec
Juvenile Court Judge and then ran and won as a Juvenile
Court Judge. So he has won to my recollection two city-
wide elections. . _
Q. Was his election to the House of Representatives city-
wide? A. No, it was not; it was from a district there.
I think he ran from Ward One or Two. It was a small—
it was a geographic district located at that time, I think
it was in District C. =
Q. And do you know, sir, what the racial composition
of the House District from which Judge Moriele was elected
was? A. It was predominantly Black. .
. And were there other Blacks in the legislature at the
time Judge Moriele was elected? A. I believe he was the
first one, I think, who was elected in modern times. There
é 2 several now. im
“we Judge Moriele supported by White political
[525] leaders. A. Yes, he was. ~ aio
©. Was he supported by White political organizations
in his race now, that is, before the Criminal Court of ae
peals? A. You mean for the C..* * Court of Appeais'
Q. Cireuit—Cireuit Court of Appeals. A. Yes, he a
Q. Was he supported by White political leaders when he
ran citywide for the at-large seat? A. Yes, he ran on—
he was endorsed by at least two candidates for mayor, and
possibly three, I don’t recall; but I know he was on two
tickets, if I recall correctly, one of which was Mayor Lan-
drieu’s ticket who is our present mayor.
. How many members of the Circuit Court of Appeals
are there, sir? <A. I believe there are seven. oe
Q. Doctor Spears is the president of the Orleans Parish
School Board, is that correct, sir? A. He is a member of
385
the Orleans Parish School Board; there are five members.
All are elected at-large. They select their own president.
He has served as the president of the school board on at
least two occasions. At least, they will elect you for a
year at a time by their own board. It’s a totally separate
governmental agency in no way controlled by city gov-
ernment. They have their own taxing authority, but [526]
they all run citywide.
(). Is Doctor Spears Black? A. Yes, he is a Black edu-
cator. ™
@. Are there other Blacks on the New Orleans Parish
School Board? A. I don’t believe there are.
(). Was Doctor Spears endorsed by White political lead-
ers in his campaign for the school board? A. Yes, he
was; he was endorsed by White political leaders; the same
gamut of support that I previously described, White and
Black political, civic, and I believe by the local newspapers.
He is an outstanding individual who has been involved
in many, many things in the City of New Orleans and
who is qualified for the position and who does live in
District B, if I recall correctly.
Q. Now we have stated that he was endorsed—in talking
about Judge Moriele, or Augustine, or Dr. Spears, that
they were endorsed by organizations or by political leaders.
Is there a process in the political way of life in Orleans
Parish, is endorsement a formal structure, is it a formal
anointment, or could you characterize endorsement for us,
sir, in likeness to—as to what the term means in the reali-
ties of political life in Orleans Parish? A. Well, up until
a few weeks ago, which would apply to the current mayor-
ality race taking place in the City of [527] New Orleans,
it had been customary, and this was also true on a state-
wide basis, although predominantly in New Orleans, that
an individual who qualified to run for mayor would also
align himself with a group of candidates who were running
for the City Council for the various parochial offices, clerk
of the court, criminal sheriff, civil sheriff. We have prob-
ably fifteen positions in the City of New Orleans that
386
run at the same time as the mayor. And the history is that
the mayorality candidate and his supporters would through
some process pick what we call a ticket and they would
mutually support each other. They would print a ballot
which would be mailed to the voters stating ‘‘Chet Morrison
endorses these various people’’ and to a great extent in
past history, this influenced the way many people voted
because if they voted for the mayorality candidate, quite
often they voted for the people whom he said were going
to be his team and each mayorality candidate generally
get a full slate of candidates.
Quite often the same individual, such as councilman,
might appear on more than one ticket. Now in the last
election, I was on five, which was all the tickets, so I
was very fortunate to be endorsed by all of them.
Now that system, apparently, has disappeared from the
New Orleans scene because in the current elections, we
don’t have a ticket as such, the one that’s going on right
now, and apparently, there is tendency in New Orleans to
[528] get away from this type of election process. In the
last elections for the House and Senate, quite a few people
who were endorsed by on one did get elected to the House
and Senate and defeated many, many encumbents who were
on tickets. It’s a part of New Orleans political history
which is changing and disappearing with the times, just
as our political organizations have pretty much disappeared.
We don’t have them any more in New Orleans as we did
fifty or sixty years ago, or twenty years ago.
Q. Do organizations put tickets together, or endorse can-
didates? A. They did.
Q. Do they at the present time? A. At the present
time, I would say that there is no political organizations
in New Orleans which has the ability to elect or unelect
anyone. Now that may not ingratiate me with some of the
local politicians, but that’s my feeling.
Q. But that is not to say they no longer exist? A. You
do have some relatively small organizations still in exist-
ence. But the political organizations to which you would
387
be referring, which existed in the days of the former-Chet
Morrison who is now dead, and the former-Jim Comiskey
(phonetic spelling) who is now dead, where you had two
warring camps within the Democratic Party who were quite
[529] strong and dominant with ward and precinct organi-
zations. They have disappeared from the scene. There aren’t
anything like that any more. You might have a local group
comprised of a very small number of people who interview
candidates and comes out and says, ‘‘This is who we
support,” but they are of relatively minor import today
in New Orleans. The people are voting based on what they
see on television, what they read in newspapers, and what
the candidate is able to convey in person. They are not
blindly voting on the basis of a piece of literature that
they get through the mail.
If I might say, one of the reasons for that is that we
have a very strong Civil Service System in New Orleans
now and the people are not beholding towards a list for
jobs; you really can’t control votes. People, as a result
vote the way they please, which was not true twenty or
thirty, or forty years ago. 7
Q. The political organizations that still exist, they en-
dorse candidates and seek to have their support or ‘their
members support those candidates? A. Yes, that would
be correct. )
(. The last time you ran, for instance, in 1969, did vou
have the endorsement of any such organization? A I cer-
tainly did.
(. How many would you say? A. Everyone in District
4s
[530] Q. And how many would that be, sir? A. Well
there were mayorality candidates, five, and I was on each
one of their tickets and then you had two or three organi-
zations which claimed to have citywide support and I was
on their tickets. There were several Black political organi-
zations and I was on their ticket and I had a rather unique
situation of being on just about everybody’s ticket, maybe
I’ve been a good councilman.
388
Q. You’ve indicated that there were several Black or-
ganizations in which you were on their ticket. Do you know
the names of those organizations, sir? A. Yes, I could
recite some of them; one of them is the Southern Organiza-
tion for Unified Leadership, SOUL. I don’t know whether
I gave you the proper name, but I think I did; the Ninth
Ward’s Citizens Voters League which I have been very
active with since I’ve been in office. There would have
been several smaller organizations which represented spe-
cific neighborhoods, to tell you the names of them off-hand
right now, I would know the names of their leaders, Angela
Dunwatt (phonetic spelling) had an organization out in
the St. Claude area, Mrs. Leotyne Luke who has been with
the Ninth Ward Civic and Improvement Association some
fifty years, her organization supported me. Those are the
only ones I can recall off-hand.
Q. Those were Black organizations? [531] <A. Yes,
those are Black organizations.
Q. Why do you characterize them as Black organiza-
tions? A. Because their membership was entirely Black.
They were comprised of—they were located in neighbor-
hoods that were predominantly Black. They were organized
for the purpose of trying to better the conditions of the
Black residents of those neighborhoods. I think they were
motivated socially and otherwise to improve the condi-
tions of the people that they were trying to represent.
Q. Are their White organizations, political organizations,
in Orleans Parish or the City of New Orleans? A. Yes,
there are.
Q. And what interest did they try to secure or serve?
A. You have some—well, right now there are very few
left. If I had to say insofar as organized politics are con-
cerned in New Orleans today, I would say there is more
on the Black side than the White side. The RDO which
was a very strong political organization for many, many
years and as a citywide organization, does not have the
same type of influence that it had when Huey Long was
governor many, many years ago. It does not have the
389
same type of neighborhood orientation as would the Black
organizations. You have some other, Alliance for Good
Government which is a group of young men whose own
interest, apparently, is to elect qualified people for public
office, with no axe to grind.
[532] You have some civic associations who had branched
out into doing the same thing, but the White political or-
ganizations as such have pretty much disappeared from
the scene.
(). How does one secure the endorsement of these kinds
of political organizations? A. The procedure used to be
that you qualified for office, put your money up to become
a candidate, and then the organizations generally had meet-
ings where they interviewed prospective candidates. They
asked you your views, they knew something of your back-
ground, assessed your chances of winning or losing; if
they were aligned with a mayorality candidate, try to
determine whether you could help him get elected because
this was quite crucial to them if they were looking for
patronage in some form or other, and I’m certain there
were family friendships, and other criteria that they fol-
lowed. You went there with hat-in-hand, gave your speech,
and hopefully, got their support if you wanted it. If you
did receive it, you were quite often called upon to con-
tribute to their expenses of printing a ballot, running an
ad in the newspapers, TV commercials, et cetera.
(). Was it expensive? A. Depending on the office that
you ran for, it could be, and depending on how naive you
were in politics. In the beginning it varied. As vou run
more, it gets less expensive [533] because you learn not
to waste as much money.
(. You indicated the last time you ran you had the en-
dorsement of SOUL? A. That’s my understanding, yes,
I did. |
(). It’s Black and is that the Southern Organization for
Unified Leadership, I believe, is it not? A. Yes, it’s lo-
cated in the Ninth Ward in District E.
390
Q. Was their endorsement important to your bid for
re-election? A. It certainly was helpful. I asked for it and
was happy to receive it. |
(. Were they able to in your judgment deliver votes?
A. Yes. |
Q. Are the other organizations able to deliver votes!
Judge Robinson: How much more of this line of ques-
tioning, Mr. Shurtliff, do you have?
Mr. Shurtliff: Very few, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: I think you’re getting a little far afield
now. .
Witness: I think they all attempted to convince their
constituency that I was the best candidate for the office
and that they should vote for me. When you say ‘‘deliver’’,
that’s not a term, really, that I would care to use. | would
like to believe that they convinced them that I had done
a good job for four years in order to be in for four more
years. |
[534] Mr. Shurtliff: I have no further questions, Your
Honor.
Judge Robinson: Very well. |
Mr. Halpin: I will have no questions of this witness.
Judge Robinson: I’m sorry, | didn’t hear you.
Mr. Halpin: I will have no questions of this witness.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Stoner, Mr. Treese, any redirect
examination of this witness?
Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, I would have one
very brief question of the witness.
Judge Robinson: All right.
Redirect Examination
By Mr. Stoner:
Q. Councilman, you've referred to—I believe the expres-
sion was—‘‘ paved the streets for free’’, that you had been
able to convince White voters that Black areas should have
their streets ‘‘paved for free’’. What do you mean by that
expression in the context of the system in New Orleans!
391
A. In New Orleans, the only method we have for paving
residential streets is by a paving-lien program where the
property owners are assessed. When we pave a street, they
are required to pay a part of the cost of paving. This has
been in effect since 1920. In all of the streets of the City
of New Orleans that have been paved have been paved
under that procedure. In the past four years, we were
able with the assistance of urban renewal funds and model
cities funds to go [535] into my district, in the lower Ninth
Ward, and to pave residential streets at no cost to the
abutting property owners by the City putting up ten percent
of the total cost. This ten percent came from general bond
funds which all of the residents of New Orleans voted on
in a bond election.
So in effect, we took money from all of the citizens of
the City of New Orleans and we put it into District K,
even though it was ten percent, and we were able to pave
the residential streets in this area at no cost to the property
owners. Now we have not done this and are unable to do
this in other part of the City by law. There was no publie
protest or outcry; there was some grumbling, but my recol-
lection is that the Council voted unanimously for these
appropriations and we are presently paving a very large
number—and when I say ‘‘paving’’, Your Honors, I mean,
subsurface drainage, conercte paving roadways and curbs,
the type of streets that we don’t have throughout the City
of New Orleans. We still have a lot of dirt streets and a
lot of streets that need to be improved without subsurface
drainage. So when I’m speaking of ‘‘paving’’, | mean the
type of street that you would find in the best residential
areas in the City of New Orleans and we do not have
sufficient City funds to go in and do this without assessing
the property owners. We are doing this in my district and
in those areas with the assistance of federal funds. We are
quite happy to [536] have the federal funds because we
could not have done it without it.
Mr. Stoner: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Judge Robinson: Does this complete the examination of
the Councilman?
392
Mr. Shurtliff: I have no further questions. |
Judge Robinson: May he be excused at this time?
Mr. Shurtliff: He may.
Judge Robinson : Councilman, you are excused.
Witness: Thank you.
(Witness withdrew from the stand, having been excused
by the Court.)
Judge Robinson: At this point, gentlemen, the Court will
stand in recess for five minutes.
(Whereupon, the Court adjourned at 3:00 p.m.)
[537] Late AFTERNOON SEssION
(The 3-Judge Court reconvened at 3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Treese: May it please the Court, in the break we
have conferred on the Plaintiffs’ side of the courtroom
and in view of the stipulation reached this morning, we
do not intend to call any other witnesses who are present
today; we don’t intend to call them tomorrow, either, but
will rely on their testimony—deposition testimony.
We do have one more possible witness who, unfortunately
will not arrive in the city until 8 o’clock tomorrow morning.
It may be that at that time we will decide not to even use
him in which case, our case will be closed. |
Judge Robinson: In the event that you should decide to
use him, we will let you reopen the Plaintiffs’ case at that
time.
Mr. Treese: Very well, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: I take it that with that reservation,
the Plaintiffs are resting at this time?
Mr. Treese: That is true, Your Honor.
Now one other point I’d like to make note of at present,
in checking with the Court personnel, about the deposi-
tions which have been stipulated will be introduced as a
joint exhibit, it appears that the Court has not received
the original transcripts of all of those depositions.
393
Judge Robinson: That is correct.
[538] Mr. Treese: We will make inquiry as to that, we
certainly have copies of all of them and will make them
available to the Court as rapidly as possible.
Judge Robinson: And the Clerk is making efforts in
that direction, too.
Mr. Treese: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Stoner.
(Both Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred privately off-the-
record. )
Judge Robinson: Mr. Shurtliff, will you call your first
witness.
Mr. Shurtliff: May it please the Court, the Government
intends as we indicated this morning to call two witnesses,
live, neither one of whom are in the city at the moment.
They are expected tomorrow. I apologize to the Court for
not having them here. They were available at this time,
but we had been unable to determine how many days into
this trial after resumption we would be going with Plain-
tiffs’ witnesses and one of our prospective witnesses is a
mother of small children whom we didn’t want to incon-
venience her unnecessarily, if we could avoid that, and
the other witness whom we intend to call is a member of
the state legislature and is very busy and so we didn’t
want to bring him to Washington too early, and so we had
expected to have them arrive this evening, neither one of
whom has arrived as yet.
[539] Judge Waddy: Are either of these witnesses in the
District of Columbia?
Mr. Shurtliff: Neither are, Your Honor, they are both
residents of the City of New Orleans.
Judge Robinson: What is the materiality of the testi-
mony to be given by the witness whom you referred to
as the mother of small children?
Mr. Shurtliff: She is a political leader in the Black com-
munity in New Orleans.
394
Judge Robinson: I see, all right. |
Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, if it may expedite matters,
we had hoped the Court to allow the Department of Justice
to put on their defense, first, and then only cover those
areas that we felt were necessary, thereby shortening our
case. However in—we are prepared to go forward. What
we might suggest to the Court is that they allow Defendant-
Intervenors to go ahead today and to call a witness, or
two, and then tomorrow to allow the Plaintiffs to proceed
and the Justice Department to proceed and then put on
our case in major at the end of that proceeding, if that
wouldn’t be too confusing.
Judge Robinson: Certainly, it will not be confusing to
the Court and it seems that’s the most economical way
from a time viewpoint to proceed.
We will let you proceed with that arrangement.
[540] Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor. In that case, I would
like to call Councilman DiRosa on cross-examination under
the Rules. .
Judge Robinson: While we are awaiting the arrival of
that witness in the courtroom, I take it that the Govern-
ment will be ready to proceed with any and all of its
witnesses on tomorrow?
Mr. Shurtliff: That’s correct, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Very well.
Mr. Treese: May it please the Court, I am informed
that Councilman DiRosa has left. Frankly, I didn’t know
that he was needed this afternoon and he had an urgent
matter in New York City.
Mr. Halpin: I just saw him just a moment ago.
Mr. Shurtliff: I think, Your Honor, he’s trying to catch
the ballgame; he’s gone back to New York to try to catch
the ballgame.
Judge Waddy: The ballgame isn’t until eight o’clock.
(Laughter in the courtroom. )
Mr. Halpin: I didn’t realize that. I did inform Mr.
Stoner and Mr. Treese at the recess earlier today that I
might call him...
"s
395
Judge Robinson: Is the Councilman still here?
Mr. Stoner: I believe, Your Honor, that the Councilman
has left. I do, however, have the address in New York and
[541] told him that I would check with him tomorrow if
Mr. Halpin intended to call him tomorrow.
Judge Robinson: Well, Mr. Ilalpin, I take it that you
can make arrangements to let the Councilman know that
you desire to call him as a witness.
Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor, I thought I had informed
his counsel earlier today at the break and that I would,
possibly, call him; of course, I didn’t know whether it
would be today, or not.
Judge Robinson: With the telephone number that Mr.
Stoner has, you gentlemen might get together and make
arrangements for him to be on hand tomorrow. You have
another witness, I take it, Mr. Halpin?
Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Could we then proceed?
Mr. Halpin: I’d like to call Johnny Jackson.
(Councilman DiRosa entered the courtroom at this point. )
Mr. Treese: Here he is, Your Honor.
(Laughter in the courtroom.)
Judge Robinson: Councilman, come forward.
Whereupon,
Joseph DiRosa
took the stand, and being duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
[542] Direct Examination
By Mr. Halpin:
(). Could you state your name for the record, please,
sir? A. My name is Joseph DiRosa (spelling out) D-i-
capital-R-o-s-a.
(). All right, Mr. DiRosa, are you presently councilman
at-large in the City of New Orleans? A. Yes, I am.
396
Q. When were you first elected to that office? A. I was
elected in 1962.
Q. And you were re-elected in 1966? A. No, in 1966,
I was defeated by, I think, 268 votes out of 140 thousand,
something like that.
Q. And you were elected for the second time...? A.
In 69. .
Q. Prior to that time, did you hold any elective public
office? A. No, I did not.
Q. Mr. DiRosa, could you indicate the amount of money
that you spent on each of these occasions running at-large
for City Councilman of New Orleans? A. I’m sorry, I
didn’t get the question.
Q. All right, could you state approximately how much
money you spent running for at-large councilman in the
City [543] of New Orleans in each of those three elections?
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I object to this question, I
don’t know the relevancy of this question.
Judge Robinson: What is the relevance? .
Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, it’s our position that with
the long history of racial discrimination in voting and
other aspects in the City of New Orleans that at-large
elections particularly discriminate against Black voters who
have less economic facilities for running at-large and that
the at-large elections because of their additional costs is
one of the factors which tends to discriminate against
Blacks, and we would like to establish generally the high
costs of running at-large in view of that history.
Judge Waddy: Are you suggesting that one of the defects
of this plan is that is continues to permit at-large council-
men?
Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir, very definitely.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Stoner.
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I object to this line of ques-
tioning. I don’t believe that is at issue. The only issue
before this Court is whether or not a redistricting plan
calling for five—this particular plan, Plan No. Two which
ealls for the redistricting of the City into five districts is
397
fair and equitable plan that applies to the Act of 1965.
The at-large provision is a Charter provision of [544] the
City of New Orleans and it is not before this Court.
Judge Robinson: Mr. Halpin, you only have that one
question of this witness, am I correct?
Mr. Halpin: Well, Your Honor, as I understand Mr.
Stoner’s position .. .
Judge Robinson: Is that the only question you have on
this particular issue?
Mr. Halpin: No, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Well, how much questioning do you have
on this issue?
Mr. Halpin: The question—I’m sorry, Your Honor. On
the economic question, yes; that is the only thing. I have
many more questions which will go to the discriminatory
nature of the at-large election and I...
Judge Waddy: How is that an issue in this case?
Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir, I...
Judge Waddy: You are attacking, as Mr. Stoner points
out, a plan that has five districts; nothing is said in that
plan concerning the at-large candidates—at-large council-
men. Now how do your questions that you propose now
affect Plan No. Two which is before us?
Mr. Halpin: All right. It is my contention, Your Honor,
that that is not all that is before this Court. It is my con-
tention that in United States vs. Georgia, when a voting
change is made, the Court must consider the entire plan.
In [545] United States vs Georgia, there were some districts
which remained unchanged, that is, the same configuration.
The United States Supreme Court in that case found that
it was proper to consider that under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. We would also indicate .. .
Judge Robinson: Could I intrude just a moment?
Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir.
Judge Robinson: If Judge Waddy and you, Mr. Halpin,
will ict me intrude for just a minute?
Mr. Halpin: Certainly.
398
Judge Robinson: Let me tell you what I have in mind
which was behind my earlier questions to you. I think we
have a legal problem here. We have witnesses present. It
was my thought that if it’s not going to take a great deal
of time to take this evidence because, apparently, that’s all
that we can do with the remainder of the court day today
and then you can brief and orally argue the legal questions
later. Now if that arrangement is satisfactory with my
colleagues and counsel —_
Judge Corcoran: I would sustain Mr. Stoner’s objection,
I don’t think it’s relevant. We’re not considering the Char-
ter; we’re considering this Plan. The Charter creates the
at-large seat election.
Judge Robinson: Well, gentlemen, suppose I let you argue
the question. Councilman, if you will be more [546] com-
fortable by resuming your seal in the courtroom, you may
leave the stand at this point.
(Witness withdrew from the stand and resumed his seat
in the courtroom.)
Judge Robinson: All right, Mr. Halpin, you can proceed
in response to the questions...
Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, I would like the Court to per-
mit the opportunity to present a brief at the end of the
proceedings to detail my argument in better fashion. How-
ever, it is our position that Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act was intended to remove racially discriminatory voting
procedure in certain selected southern states by the formu-
la, of course, that’s well known in the Act.
The problem that we’re presented with here which the
Court is raising under Section o is a very crucial question
and it is one that I have had on other occasions in other
district courts in Louisiana raised, and that is the situation
that when part of a redistricting, or electoral arrangement
is changed, does that trigger Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act and require then that the entire electoral arrangement
then must be examined to determine whether it is racially
discriminatory in purpose of effect, or does the Court simply
399
consider those narrow areas, which were different than
they were before, in considering the racial discrimination.
I would suggest to the Court that if the Court would
[547] take the latter, narrow construction of Section 5,
that this would be contrary to the intention of Congress
in enacting the Act. I think it would also be disastrous in
terms of turning the clock back to no longer afford Black
voters in those selected southern states with the Section 5
protections.
I will give you examples. Typically, for instance, in
Louisiana, police juries which are similar to boards of
supervisors, county governing bodies and school boards
have been traditionally elected from single-member district
wards. However, as towns within these parishes have grown
in population, it will be frequent that in the only town, or
several towns within the parish, there will be one multi-
member district composed of typically, say, five or six
members and then the remaining of the parish elective, say
another six from districts. This was the consideration in
London vs. East Feliciana in the middle district of Loui-
siana, as well as a number of other cases. If you would
take—and the typical situation is that Blacks from the
rural areas have moved into the towns within these
parishes,
East Feliciana redistricted itself, as did many other
parishes. If they, however, for instance, changed the num-
ber of members elective in this multi-member district from
six to, say, eight in order to meet population numbers,
but did not change the lines, is that a change under Section
o—you’re electing, maybe, two more members—or given
the next [548] situation, if the line is not changed at all,
is this to be detefmined or should you look at the, you
know, the entire effect?
Now in United States vs. Georgia, the question was
raised, the identical question, relative to the, I think in
this case it involved the Senate of the State of Georgia—
it may have been the House of Representativ es, but in any
effect a 3-judge district court in Georgia determined that
400
this act, this redistricting act, must be submitted to the
Department of Justice under Section 5. The Justice De-
partment objected to several districts, and I can set this
out in greater detail in my brief and attach the appendix
of that case, if necessary, districts which had not changed
their boundaries, yet the Department of Justice pursuant
to Section 5 did enter objections to that, saying that we
must consider the plan as a whole. The United States
Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Georgia held that this type—
held blankedly, of course, that the Justice Department was
perfectly proper that this was a matter which was covered
by Section 5. The language, of course, is not explicit; it
does not go to this particular issue. But if the Court will
examine the record in that case, you’ll see that’s exactly
what the Supreme Court did, will see that that point was
argued before the United States Supreme Court. So it’s
clearly—-I would also indicate to the Court that in—there
is, of course the problem of the [549] dual jurisdiction,
when you start dealing with Section 5 in redistricting
cases; whereas this Court has certain types of jurisdiction
relative to Section 5, a Federal District Court in Louisiana
might have slightly different sort of jurisdictions, and it
is admittedly confusing as to where one stops and the others
start.
However, I would suggest that this Court also has equity
powers, that it is sitting as a District Court, Federal District
Court in equity and that it would be inappropriate for
this Court not to consider an obviously racially discrimina-
tory feature of the play which is presented before it. .
Note the Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Zim-
mer vs. McKeithen, decided earlier this month, in which
the Fifth Circuit found that at-large elections in the parish
of each quorum were unconstitutional and impremissible.
It’s noteworthy for our purposes that in that case, there is
technically a situation where the voting change should
have been submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to
Section 5, but never was and have proceeded in normal
litigation in the Federal District Court in Louisiana. The
401
Court en banc in its opinion noted this, and said that,
‘We’re just simply not going to be blind to this; we’re not
going to set up different standards under the Fourteenth
Amendment than we are under Section 5.
I would suggest to this Court that even if it would [550]
find that Section 5 doesn’t cover the situation, that it cer-
tainly has equity power to consider the question of the
constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
at-large districts. So I would suggest to the Court that
this is very much within the jurisdiction of the Court;
it’s very much required that this Court consider that issue,
as well as the issue of the narrow configuration of the
districts. Also, we would consider that one must consider
the total impact of the plan and where we have suggested
in our opening argument that you sort of have a White
quota, they have sort of two up on us, that automatically
two White are elected before a Black even gets a chance
to be elected under a districting arrangement, that the total
effect of the plan must be determined by this Court under
the proviisons of Section 5 which says, ‘. . . racially dis-
criminatory in purpose or effect.’’ It might well be that
these same districts, if they were only five members might
not be racially discriminatory in effect, but when you had
to it two Whites, it may well be racially discriminatory in
effect, in that by configuration of the districts or consid-
erations of the electoral arrangements that Blacks are auto-
matically excluded from full and meaningful participation
in the process.
We would wish that the Court would, at least, take the
position to hear our case, allow our evidence and have
this proposition fully briefed.
Thank you.
[551] Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Halpin. Mr.
Stoner.
Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, the pleadings which
have been filed in this case, both by the United States Gov-
ernment and by the Intervenors do not raise the issue
which has been argued and presented to the Court by Mr.
402
Halpin. The pleadings do not attack the plan and does not
mention the at-large seats.
I call the Court’s attention to the Complaint which has
been filed in this case, and specifically, Exhibit A to the
Complaint, which is Exhibit 4 in this trial, and that ex-
hibit, Section 3-102 is from the Charter—is a section of the
Charter of the City of New Orleans. Section 3-102 is en-
titled, ‘‘Number and Terms of Councilmen’’, and is as
follows:
‘‘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 shal] be four
years beginning on the first Monday of May, next fol-
lowing their election, except that a Councilman is se-
lected to fill a vacancy, shall serve only for the re-
mainder of the expired term.’’
All right, now that provision sets up the City Charter as
being a seven-man Charter—a seven-person Council. it
sets two councilmen at-large and five councilmanic dis-
tricts.
[552] Now I call the Court’s attention to the fact that the
next provision, Section 3-103 of the Charter goes on and
is entitled, ‘Councilman Districts’’, and I submit that these
two sections stand independent of one another. And in the
latter section, the councilmanie districts are described as
follows:
‘“‘The City shall be divided into five councilmanie dis-
tricts. Each district shall serve as the basis for elect-
ing a district councilman, the five districts shall be as
follows .. .”’
and then they refer to District A through District E.
Going then to Section 3 of that same Section, paragraph
—subparagraph 3, we have the following:
‘‘Tt shall be the mandatory duty of the Council to re-
district the City by ordinance within six months after
403
the official publication by the United States of the
population of the City as enumerated in each decen-
nial census. Each councilmanic 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.’’
Now my point is this, the City Charter, itself [553]
clearly deals separately with the issue of the number of
the entire Council and its makeup, mainly, two at-large and
five districts, and deals in a separate manner with the
councilmanie districts, itself.
Now the Plan of redistricting that is before the Court
is a plan that has been adopted under Section 3-103 of
the Charter, and that deals only with the five councilmanie
districts, and we submit to the Court that the only issue
before the Court is whether or not the redistricting of the
five districts as proposed in Plan No. Two is fair and equl-
table and complies with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The question of the at-large councilmen is not before the
Court at all. I submit again, I state again, that it has never
been raised in' the pleadings by, either the United States,
or by the Intervenors.
Thank you.
Judge Robinson: It has not been?
Mr. Stoner: It has not been raised by the pleadings . . .
Judge Robinson: Well, you may be correct, maybe you
can answer my question. I was looking at the statement for
intervention. It does not seem to raise the issue, although
it is my recollection that we were advised by council for
the Intervenors on the very first day of trial that they in-
tended to raise—to present this issue before the Court.
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I have a recollection of [554]
Mr. Halpin making that issue and if the Court will recall,
I believe we objected to the introduction of any evidence,
or any argument with respect to that at that time.
Judge Robinson: And we did not rule on the point at the
time.
404
Mr. Stoner: I believe the Court is correct.
Judge Corcoran: I think the record should show, too, that
the Department of Justice never raised this issue, they just
made their objections to the Plan.
Judge Robinson: Well, we’re going to have Mr. Shurt-
liff make his representation at this time.
Very well, Mr. Shurtliff, you want to be heard on this?
Mr. Shurtliff: Briefly, Your Honor.
By and large, we would agree with Mr. Halpin’s recital
of the impact of U.S. v. Georgia, Zimmer vs. McKetthen,
and the other cases citing the legal proposition. However,
as Your Honors may recall at the time the Motion to In-
tervene was considered by this Panel, this question was
raised and we responded that in our judgment, the issue of
the two at-large members might be reached by this Court
appropriately so, but that it would not be necessary in our
judgment, (repeating) necessary for this Court to reach
that issue.
Under the United States vs. Georgia, it is our judgment
that the total package must be considered...
[555] Judge Robinson: The whole package?
Mr. Shurtliff: The total redistrictng package can be con-
sidered by this Court and that it is all within the purview
of Section 5 and it would have been well within the powers
granted by Section 5 for the Attorney-General to consicer
and determine on the issue of at-large at the time that it
was submitted, but that as Judge Corcoran pointed out,
that, in fact, was not mentioned by the Department of Jus-
tice, but that it might well have been.
Judge Robinson: Well, I don’t—I’m not certain that
Bees
Mr. Shurtliff: It’s a question of necessity, Your Honor,
rather than a legal—in our judgment as to the legal power
to do so.
Judge Robinson: What is the Court’s function under
Section 5 limited to in view of the scope of the decision
rendered by the Attorney-General, not mentioning coun-
cilmen at-large, not posing it, rather, as an objection to the
so-called Plan No. Two.
405
Mr. Shurtliff: The Court here is not bound, of course,
by the judgments rendered by the Attorney-General in his
rievew. The obligation of this Court is to determine
whether or not the Plan has the purpose or effect of dis-
criminating on account of race and color, not the correct-
ness; indirectly, therefore, the correctness of the Depart-
ment of Justice’s [556] determination .. .
Judge Robinson: Excuse me, just a moment.
(The 3-Judge Panel conferred privately off-the-record.)
Judge Robinson: Go right ahead.
Mr. Shurtliff: Only in that respect does this Court in-
directly examine into the Attorney-General’s determina-
tion, but it makes its own determination with that respect
to that question and it is our judgment that this Court
could reach those issues.
Judge Robinson: Is that fair to your adversary who is
not prepared to argue that point, or put on evidence con-
cerning that point. He’s built his case around the narrow
issue that was raised by the Attorney-General and be
brought that to this Court. Now you want to expand the
pleadings and expand the proof and he’s not prepared to
go forward.
Mr. Shurtliff: I see no unfairness, Your Honor, in that
the Plaintiffs’ obligation was to persuade this Court at
this time that the Plan does not have the purpose and will
not have the effect...
Judge Corcoran: He took the Attorney-General at face
value and said, ‘‘This is what’s wrong. . .”’—‘‘this is what
the Attorney-General said was wrong with the Plan and
this s what we are prepared to argue.’’ Now there s a new
issue in the case. I think you are bound by what the Attor-
ney-General [557] has designated as the parameters of
this case.
Judge Robinson: Well, to sum it up, Mr. Halpin—I beg
your pardon, not Mr. Halpin, but Mr. Shurtliff, don’t leave
the lectern just yet.
First thing you have is what I refer to as the scope of
the Attorney-General’s decision on the two submissions by
406
the City of New Orleans. Secondly, you have a Motion to
Intervene which does not formally present that issue to
the Court. The first information that the Intervenors
would seek to press that issue, that I can recall receiving,
was at or very near the beginning of this trial. Now we
are at the point where the Plaintiffs have rested subject to
a relatively minor reservation and we have the proffer by
the Intervenors to put this evidence in. Now I think that
fairly summarizes the situation with which the Court is
confronted at this time.
If I understand the Government’s position, it is that the
Court is at liberty to consider this issue? Your implication
is that the Court has a responsibility to consider this issue,
am I correct?
Mr. Shurtliff: I’m sorry, Your Honor, I didn’t catch the
phrase just before...
Judge Robinson: I said, if I understand your position
correctly, it is that the Court properly reaches the issue
of the councilmen at-large and that it has a responsibility
to do [558] so, is that the Government’s positiorr
Mr. Shurtliff: Our position is that this Court can reach
that issue, but that it does not necessarily have the re-
sponsibility to do so.
Judge Robinson: But that is because, as I understand,
you don’t think it is going to be necessary for the Court
to reach it,
Mr. Shurtliff: That is correct, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: . . . the issues in the case, but we
may not have to resolve it, is that correct?
Mr. Shurtliff: That is correct, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: I’m going to raise one question to all
eounsel that is aside from the substantive features, it gets
back to where we were about a half-hour ago, Rule 43(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in—I’m
going to read you the relevant part as follows:
9
‘‘In an action
407
I’ll have to read you a part that’s not relevent so that you
will understand the part that is relevant.
‘‘In an action tried by a jury, if an objection to a
question propounded to a witness is sustained by the
court, the examining attorney may make a specific of-
fer of what he expects to prove by the answer of the
witness.’’
[559] Then it goes on to say:
‘‘In actions tried without a jury the same procedure
may be followed, except that the court upon request
shall take and report the evidence in full, unless it
clearly appears that the evidence is not admissible on
any ground or that the witness is privileged.’’
What, if any, role does that provision play in the decision
of the question now before us. Mr. Halpin has tendered
this testimony with a request that the Court receive it and
later rule on the legal questions involved. My own concern
is that if the Court should rule that the evidence is not
admissible and the Supreme Court disagrees, we will have
to sit down and do this work over again.
Do you have a thought on the applicability of Rule
43(c), Mr. Shurtliff, and I will say to you that I am going
to put this same question to counsel for the Plaintiffs and
for the Intervenors?
(The 3-Judge Panel conferred privately off-the-record.)
Judge Robinson: I’m sorry, Mr. Shurtliff, go ahead.
Mr. Shurtliff: li would be my judgment, Your Honor,
that the Rule in this instance would allow the taking of
testimony and acceptance of the proffer and that it should
be [560] taken. Consistent with our position that the Court
might not need reach this issue, the evidence taken on this
question need not be determinative of the Court’s decision
later, and in that respect, would not have to have an im-
pact on the Court’s decision here, if the Court later de-
408
termined that it does not want to reach the question to
which that testimony is directed.
Judge Robinson: All right, sir. Mr. Stoner.
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, do I understand that the evi-
dence would be heard as a proffer of evidence, but that the
Court would not consider the evidence until it had first
reached its conclusion with respect to the law which we
have argued?
Judge Robinson: That is correct, under Rule 46(c), if
it is a non-jury trial which we have here, and the party
proffering the testimony requests that the testimony or
the evidence be taken in full, the Rule says that the Court
shall do so. In terms of this case, it would preserve it, first,
or further decision and possible consideration by the Court,
that is, if the Court should rule that the issue is properly
before it, and in any event, would preserve the testimony
for purposes of appellate review.
Mr. Stoner: We understand and I believe under the Rule,
it would be obligatory on the Court to take the evidence.
Judge Robinson: If the Rule applies.
Mr. Stoner: If the Rule applies.
[561] Judge Robinson: Very well. Did you have any
thoughts on this, Mr. Halpin?
Mr. Halpin: Well, Your Honor, obviously, my position
is that the Rule does apply and I think, also, from the
point of view of efficiency when there is an appeal, that that
evidence would be in the transcript and would ultimately
save the Court’s time.
Judge Robinson: Very well. Would you indulge the Court
for just a minute.
(The 3-Judge Panel conferred privately off-the-record.)
Judge Robinson: As is apparent to you all, the Court
has done a modest bit of conferring on the Bench. The
Court will take under advisement the question whether the
issue tendered by the Intervenors is properly before it and
whether it will be the subject of evidentiary presentations.
409
We will endeavor, gentlemen, to give you our ruling on
that question at the outset of the proceedings on tomorrow
morning. On behalf of the Court, however, I will at this
time announce that the Court is agreed that in the event
that it should conclude that this issue is property before it
and that therefore, the Intervenors may present the evi-
dence they tender, counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for
the Government would be entitled to an opportunity to
make evidentiary presentations of their own in connection
with [562] the same issue. That would mean, of course,
that the Plaintiffs would have the opportunity of reopen-
ing their case and the Government would have an opport-
tunity to expand its presentation in each case to meet the
presentations by the Intervenors.
I’m saying that to you gentlemen now for whatever
benefit that it may have in the way of overnight reflection,
overnight preparation, even in the way of lining up pos-
sible witnesses on that score in the meanwhile.
At this point, gentlemen, I see nothing further that we
can profitably do this afternoon, so we are going to take
the adjournment for today, and as I have said before,
tomorrow morning, as soon as Court convenes, we will en-
deavor to have our ruling on this issue for you then.
I take it, gentlemen, that you have nothing further that
you want to bring to the Court’s attention this afternoon?
Is that correct?
* * . * * * . * * *
[600(a) ] Thursday, October 18, 1973
Washington, D.C.
* * * o * * * 7 * a
[601] The Clerk: Civil Action Number 1495-73, the case
of Peter H. Beer, et al, versus The United States of Amer-
ica, et al. Mr. Stoner, Mr. Treese and Mr. Salatich for the
plaintiff. Mr. Shurtliff and Mr. Friends for the defendant.
Mr. Halpin and Mr. Cotton for the intervenors.
Judge Robinson: Are you ready to proceed?
Mr. Stoner: Ready.
410
Judge Robinson: Yesterday at the conclusion of the pro-
ceedings, the Court had before it an objection to evidence
proffered by the intervenors with respect to the fact that
two members of the seven members of the New Orleans
City Council are elected at large rather than on a district
basis.
The objection as the Court understands it is to the rele-
vance of evidence on that score. The Court has concluded
that the evidence may be offered at this time subject to a
ruling which the Court may be called upon to make before
this case is fully decided as to whether that evidence has a
proper bearing on this case.
There are two principal reasons for that ruling. In the
first place from the viewpoint of the Court the legal ques-
tion does or does not properly bear on this case is a [602]
difficult question to which the parties should have the op-
portunity to devote themselves in written briefs, and per-
haps in oral argument, and the Court itself to devote itself
to a deliberate decision on that score.
Additionally, it perhaps may be a question which the
Court can better decide when it sees that evicence in rela-
‘tionship to all other evidence in the case.
And the second main reason is at some colloquy between
the Court and counsel yesterday indicated, it would ap-
pear that under Civil Rule 43(c) the intervenors in any
event are entitled to proffer the evidence in full in order
that it may be preserved in the event of subsequent appel-
late review.
For these reasons, gentlemen, the ruling of the Court
is that counsel for the intervenors may proceed, subject
to the plaintiff’s objections, to put the evidence in. If it
becomes necessary for the Court to make legal ruling, it
will do so. And subject to the further proviso as the Court
indicated from the bench on yesterday in any event counse]
for the plaintiffs and counsel for the Government will be
permitted to introduce evidence of their own on the same
question should they feel it advisable to do so.
411
That means, of course, that the case of the plaintiffs
will be reopened for that purpose if the plaintiffs should
desire to put on evidence in that regard.
[603] Now, gentlemen, it also seems to the Court, how-
ever, that it may not take nearly as much time to address
evidence to this issue as the Court has been advised that
it may take. There are some things about the matter of at
large voting that have already been the subject of judicial
decision.
At large voting was involved in Georgia versus The
United States, and Perkins versus Matthews in the Su-
preme Court, and in City of Petersburg versus The United
States in this Court, and things that are already established
judicially, and things that we know certainly do not need
to be belabored, so the Court will admonish that it will
scrutinize the testimony that is being offered in this re-
gard, and it will not permit counsel to go far afield.
Unless there are some questions as to what the current
position of the Court is, we will move to the next stage of
this case which, assuimng the presence of the witnesses for
the Government, will be the presentation of evidence on
behalf of the Government.
Mr. Stoner, you have one witness on yesterday, I am
reminded. Is that witness available now?
Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, the plaintiffs upon reflection
and study over the evening have decided to rest their case
in principal subject to the right to reopen as Your Honor
announced from the bench with respect to the new issue
which the Court will hear at proffered evidence.
[604] Thank you.
Judge Robinson: Very well. Mr. Shurtliff, you may call
your first witness.
Mr. Shurtliff: If it pleases the Court, the Government
would call Mrs. Oretha Haley. Mrs. Haley will be examined
by Mr. Friends.
Judge Robinson: Very well. You may proceed.
412
Oretha Haley.
a witness called for and in behalf of the Government, hav-
ing been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
Direct Examination
By Mr. Friends:
Q. State your name, please. A. Oretha Haley.
Q. For the record, will you state your race, please? A.
Black.
Q. What is your address, Mrs. Haley?
Judge Corcoran: Would you ask the witness to speak
up, please?
Judge Robinson: And would you do so also, counsel?
Mr. Friends: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Maybe you better repeat your last
question.
Mr. Friends: Should I go over that?
Judge Robinson: Your last question.
[605 | By Mr. Friends:
Q. Would you state your address, please? A. 1716
Agriculture Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Q. How long have you lived in New Orleans? A. I have
lived in New Orleans since 1948.
Q. That is most of your life? A. Most of it.
Q@. What is your occupation? A. Il am a homemaker.
Q. Is that your full time occupation now? A. Yes, be-
sides much of the community volunteer work that I do.
Q. What type of community volunteer work do you do?
A. Well, I am involved in quite a number of community
wide issues, for example, the transportation qnestion in
the City of New Orleans, the Booster Club activities, and
quite a number of others.
Q. What council district do you reside in? A. I live in
Councilmatie District D.
Q. Is your community involvement limited to that dis-
413
trict? A. No, it isn’t. As a matter of fact, most of the
activities that I am involved in are citywide in scope.
Q. Are you a member of any civic organization? A.
Yes, I belong to several.
[606] Q. Would you state those, please? A. I am a
member of the Urban League of the NAACP, a founder
and board member of the Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation,
Stallings Playground Booster Club.
Q. Are those predominantly black organizations? A.
Yes, I would say that they are basically black.
Q. What was your previous employment? A. I have
been employed by Xavier University as a Community Par-
ticipation Director.
I served as Program Director for the Urban League,
and prior to that I worked as a community consultant for
the Social Welfare Planning Council.
Q. Mrs. Haley, what is your educational background?
A. I have a B.A. degree in political science from Southern
University, and I have undertaken some graduate non-
credit courses.
Q. Have you ever held a public office? A. No, I have
never held a public office.
Q. Have you ever campaigned for a person seeking a
public office? A. Yes, on numerous occasions I have cam-
paigned for persons.
Q. What candidates were they and when? A. If I ean
recall—let’s see, I think the first campaign I worked in
was Nils Douglas who ran for the State Legislature.
[607] I worked for Charles Elloie, who also ran for the
State Legislature. I worked for Ernest Cherrie and Larry
Cager, who were school board candidates.
I worked for Theodore Marchand, who ran for the State
Legislature. I also served as Dorothy Taylor’s campaign
manager when she ran for the House Seat, to name a few.
Q. Are all those candidates black? A. Yes, all of them
are.
Q. You were campaign manager for Dorothy Taylor, is
that right? A. Yes, I was.
414
Q. And what year was this? A. In 1971. .
Q. Did you direct your campaign toward any particular
segment of the population? <A. Yes, the primary strategy
of the campaign was to concentrate and direct our atten-
tion to where they considered the strength of Dorothy Tay-
lor to be, and that was in the black community.
@. Did that hold true for the other candidates? A. Yes,
I would say that that held true for most of the other can-
didates. .
Q. Were any of the candidates on tickets or slates with
other white candidates? A. Not that I just mentioned, no.
The ones that I [608] mentioned before, no, they weren’t.
Q. Mrs. Haley, based on your campaign experience, is
there block voting in New Orleans? A. I would say based
on what I have seen of election returns, that you can very
clearly see block voting being done by whites and by blacks,
in New Orleans.
@. Is that particularly evident in any election that you
know of? <A. One particular election that stands out in my
mind was in 771 I think, or ’70, when Theodore Marchand
ran for the State Legislature. He won the Democratic nom-
ination, a Republican qualified against him, and for the
first time I guess in I don’t know how many years, or maybe
in that century, you had a Republican elected to the House
from that particular area, and primarily because all of the
whites voted in a block for the Republican candidate as op-
posed to voting for Marchand.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that three blacks were
elected to citywide office in New Orleans? A. Yes, I am.
@. How did that comport with your conclusion that ther:
is block voting in New Orleans? A. You really would
have to look at the campaigns and the candidates who won
those citywide offices. For example, Israel] Augustine won
a citywide judgeship. The co-campaign chairman for Aug-
ustine’s campaign was the then governor of [609] Lou-
isiana, John McKeithen, and the mayor of the City of New
Orleans, Moon Landrieu.
415
Dr. Spears also ran a citywide campaign for the school
board office in New Orleans. Informally, Dr. Spears was
running really as a team with a school board member who
had served many years on the school board, Lord Rickner,
who had been the president at one time, and in a way I
guess you would say those candidates were so put together,
or presented, or packaged, or to make them acceptable to
the white political powers, so that their election to citywide
office I would say is quite an exception, not what you would
find as a general rule, that black candidates who would
run, and this has been demonstrated in other elections,
black candidates who have chosen to run what | would quite
as independent of that kind of association in order to r sally
be legitimate candidates have lost elections, and you can
see that in several of the elections that we have had for
candidates who have run for citywide office.
One that comes to my mind particularly is the candidacy
of Larry Cager for the school board.
Q. The persons that you campaigned for, were they all
successful? A. No, I’m afraid not. The only successful
candidate I think was Dorothy Taylor, who was elected to
the State House.
Q. Did she have white support? [610] <A. The district
that she ran from was primarily—That district was a ma-
jority black district at that time. I would say that there
were—she had by way of public pronouncement received
support from some whites.
(). What whites were they? A. The only one really that
comes to my mind right now is the mayor had indicated
in a news conference that he supported Dorothy Taylor
for the House.
Q. What was the racial makeup of Mrs. Taylor’s dis-
trict? <A. At that time the district was about 80% black.
Since that time, all of the State Legislature has been re-
districted.
Q. In your working in the community, have you pre-
sented any proposal to the City Council concerning the
black community? A. Down through the years I have had
416
the occasion to appear before or work with groups who
made presentations to the City Council.
Q. Do you recall some of the issues that you presented?
A. I think I initially recall appeared before the City Coun-
cil around 1963 urging the Council to adopt a public ac-
commodations law, urging the Council to adopt an equal
employment opportunity ordinance as well as an open
house ordinance.
On another occasion appeared before the Council con-
cerning a proposal that was called a stop and frisk law
that [611] was to be adopted.
I also appeared before the Council on the question of
the location of a bridge in the metropolitan area as well
as other issues, and, of course, on this redistricting ques-
tion I appeared before the Council.
(. Were any ordinances passed as a result of your ap-
pearing before the City Council? A. Not that—there
wasn’t one passed on the public accommodations, or the
open housing, or the equal opportunity. The Council did
adopt the stop and frisk law which was something that we
were asking the Council] not to do.
On the question of the location of tht bridge, the Council
did adopt a resolution which was favorable toward the po-
sition that I held at that time.
Q. Was the public accommodations law eventually
passed? <A. A public accommodations law was not passed.
Well, yes, one was evtntually passed in 1969, however,
after I think it was twenty-four black members of the Na-
tional Football League left, walked out of the City of New
Orleans because of some of the treatment or incidents of
discrimination that they had experienced.
New Orleans was up to get the Super Bowl Game, and
I think it had been made quite clear to the City Fathers
that unless the City showed some good faith effort which
could be in the form of adopting a public accommodation
law that the game [612] would not come to the city, and
it was at that time in December of 1969 that a public ac-
commodations law was adopted which was quite a number
of years later.
417
Q. Did you present a proposal for expanding the City
Council of New Orleans? <A. Yes; yes, I did.
Q. What was that proposal?
Judge Robinson: When was it? I would like to know.
By Mr. Friends:
Q. When was it? A. It was at the time when the City
Council held its first hearing on the present redistricting
question. If I recall correctly that was around February |
think the 16th, 1972.
Q. And what was that proposal? A. At that time we
said to the City Council that the present structure that we
have right now, which is a five district, two at large, is
basically an inadequate structure for a city that has the
population of over five hundred thousand, which New Or-
leans does.
We indicated at that time that when you look around the
country the national trends are cities that have population
of five hundred thousand or more generally have councils
that range in the size from twelve to nineteen with a me-
dium being fifteen, and that because of the basic inadequate
structure of [613] the five district, two at large, that strue-
ture itself would not allow for a fair redistricting plan
that would be representative of all socio economic inter-
ests in the City, and we proposed to the Council at that
time given certain basic criteria that we had used that the
Council adopt an eleven district plan, which we held would
provide for a far more adequate and fair redistricting
plan.
Q. You say ‘‘we’’. Are you referring to a group? A.
On that particular issue there were a coalition of organi-
zations and individuals developed to work on the issue of
redistricting, and that loose coalition was called a coalition
for a fair redistricting plan. so that when I say ‘‘we’’, I
am referring to the group of the coalition.
Q. What was the racial composition of that group? A.
I cannot—I cannot remember exactly how many groups
were involved in it, but it was quite a large cross-section
418
of all of the groups in the black community, and a—there
were two mixed groups as such.
It was basically an all black group with two mixed
groups that had both black and white membership that were
involved in it.
Q. Were there any white groups? A. Not all white
groups, no.
Q. Did you campaign actively? A. I may say at that
time, however, when the City [614] Council held the hear-
ing that there were white groups who did speak and who
did, you know, make a presentation, none of which really
spoke in favor of the present council size at that particular
hearing.
Q. Did you actively campaign for the passage of that
ordinance?’ A. What were proposing was never enacted as
an ordinance so that that was not something that we voted
on.
Mr. Stoner: I object to the question, Your Honor. I
don’t believe it is responsive. I object to the answer. I
don’t believe it is responsive to the question that was
asked.
Judge Robinson: Put the question again, and let’s see
whether the question is understood.
By Mr. Friends:
Q. Did you actively campaign for the passage of the
ordinance to the City Council? A. Subsequently the City
Council adopted an ordinance that would have enlarged the
Council from five districts to nine districts, and two at
large, and I «id.
Judge Robinson: Now just a moment.
Mr. Stoner: I will object to the answer on the same
grounds.
Judge Waddy: Your answer is not responsive to the
question. Did you understand the question?
The Witness: I thought I was responding to the [615]
question I understood, so——
Judge Robinson: Mrs. Haley, as the Court understands
the question, it is did you campaign for the legislation to
419
which you have just made reference? You are speaking
about that particular ordinance, are you not?
Mr. Friends: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Robinson: Very well. Did you campaign for it?
The Witness: Did I campaign for the particular ordi-
nance that I was just talking about, the eleven district that
we submitted?
Judge Robinson: Yes.
The Witness: There was never such an ordinance.
Judge Waddy: The question was did you campaign for
such.
The Witness: Oh, I am sorry. Yes, I am sorry, I was
really understanding campaigning meaning to go and vote.
I am very sorry. Yes, I did.
By Mr. Friends:
Q. Did you campaign for the passage of the ordinance
to expand the City Council?
Judge Robinson: I myself suggest we may have a prob-
lem of relevance on these questions as to whether or not
the witness did or did not campaign for them. What re-
lationship does that have to the issues before the Court?
[616] Mr. Friends: Your Honor, we have alleged that
the referendum elections for expanding the City Council
resulted in black voting by race, and Mrs. Haley is a com-
munity worker. She was active in presenting this ordi-
nance and other ordinances to the City Council to expand,
and we are alleging that whites did not support the ordi-
nance, that it was strictly supported by blacks, and the
results of the elections show that which goes to our show-
ing that there was block voting by race.
Judge Robinson: Well, if you want to explore that, you
may do so, but your question is whether the witness cam-
paigned for this or for that.
Mr. Friends: I will strike the latter question, Your
Honor.
Judge Robinson: Very well.
‘a
420
By Mr. Friends:
Q. Mrs. Haley, are you familiar with the redistricting
plan, commonly called the Moreau Plan which is the sub-
ject of this litigation? A. Yes, I am. —
Q. Does that plan meet with your approval? A. No, it
doesn’t. |
Q. Why not? A. The plan does not, primarily because,
as I indicated earlier, a five district two at large situation
I feel is [617] basically inadequate and consequently re-
sults in discrimination.
Also the plan that was adopted that is presently called
the Moreau Plan seems to very effectively dilute present
black voting strength and the potential black voting
strength that may exist in the City of New Orleans and this
seemed to me as done primarily by the fact that the Coun-
cil has insisted on following the ward lines, following the
ward lines in the redistricting plan so that you have the
lines going from north to south, and you have because of
housing patterns the flow of the black population going
from east to west in the City of New Orleans.
Therefore, what you have is blacks, a smal] number of
blacks being placed in between like in the center of a larger
white area on either side, so that very effectively what you
do is just take a few blacks and like sit them in the center,
and then you have whites on either side, and in that way
whatever the potential is is certainly cut, a dilute and it
is primarily because of those reasons that I just mentioned
that the Moreau Plan does not meet with my approval.
Q. Based on your political activity, do you believe a
black candidate could win any of the City Council seats
under that plan? A. As the plan is presently drawn there
may be the opportunity for the possibility of the election
of one black but, as I said earlier, the plan itself is really
gerrymanded [618] so as to give middle income and upper
income whites a special—special advantage for election,
so that it is my opinion that blacks would not have any real
vossibility of being elected from that particular plan.
421
Q. Mrs. Haley, are you a registered voter? A. Yes, I
am a registered voter.
Q. Have you done yuur registration work? A. Yes, I
have worked in the area of voter registration I would say
from 1960 up through 1969.
Q. When did you become registered yourself? <A. I did
not become a registered voter unti] 1965 after the Civil
Rights Voting Act was passed.
Q. Was that when you became 21? A. No, that was long
after I became 21, but because again of the discriminatory
practices by the Registrar of the Voters on numerous oc-
casions, I went down to register and was turned down for
one reason or another, primarily residency. I didn’t have
enough identification with me. So that it was not until
after the passage of the Voting Rights Act that I was able
finally to register.
Q. Did you have any problem getting other blacks regis-
tered? A. From 19—from—prior to 1965 there was a tre-
mendous hard time getting other blacks registered. I con-
tinued to do this work up through 69, and up til that
[619] time there was stil] difficulty in having blacks regis-
tered, and that is primarily blacks were being turned down
because they could not prove that they lived in a certain
area or certain address for a long enough period of time,
or they could not prove that they were in fact who they
said they were.
Q. To your knowledge, have those problems subsided
now? A. It appears—It appears as though that has les-
sened the difficulty in persons being able to be registered.
Has really lessened a great deal in the past couple of
months. I would say maybe since August or so after this
case was filed, and I base that on the fact that since that
time the Registrar of Voters has moved around throughout
the community at public meetings, and persons have been
able to register and this was not done before except on
some college campuses.
Q. The Registrars now come to the black community,
is that your testimony? A. There have been a series of
422
meetings held where the Registrar of Voters has come out
and said people were registered.
Q. Prior to August was the Deputy Registrar going out
to the black communities? A. Not to my knowledge. There
was some college registration before, and in the last elec-
tion on a one- or two-day basis there was an ad hoc situa-
tion set up at the firestation, but not as open, nearly as
open, as it is now, you know.
[620] Prior to the Registrar doing this, it had always
heen stated that it was a violation of the law, that he could
not have persons come out to meetings and register peo-
ple. .
Mr. Friends: I have no further questions.
Judge Robinson: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Friends: I have no further questions.
Judge Robinson: Cross-examination, Mr. Stoner.
Cross-Examination
By Mr. Stoner:
Q. Mrs. Haley, I believe you testified you are a member
of the NAACP? A. I hold a paid membership in that
organization, yes.
Q. Is that a responsible organization in the City of New
Orleans? A. Would you define ‘‘responsible’’ for me so
that our definition will be the same?
(). Is it an organization that commands the respect of
the black community, the majority of the black community
in the City of New Orleans? A. I would say historically
that the NAACP has undertaken many efforts that most
black people responded to historically. —_
Q. Now do you know whether or not that organization
[621] has submitted a plan of redistricting the City of
New Orleans Councilmatic District in the City of New
Orleans? A. Yes.
Q. Now are you familiar with that plan? A. Yes, | am
familiar with that plan. |
Q. Do you agree with that plan for the redistricting of
the Councilmatie Districts of the City of New Orleans?
A. No, I don’t agree with that plan basically for the rea-
423
sons that I stated earlier. I think the plan that was pro-
posed by the NAACP was based on—is based, rather, on
five districts two at large, and I think basically that is
inadequate.
(. You believe that a plan that is composed of five dis-
tricts and two at large is inadequate, is that your state-
ment? A. That is my statement, and as long as you draw
the lines north-south—It is possible perhaps to do some-
thing a little bit more fair if you draw the lines east-west,
and I don’t think the NAACP Plan does that.
The NAACP Plan follows the traditional ward lines as
does the City’s Plan. Q. Now I believe there were public
hearings held in New Orleans on the question of redistrict-
ing, and I believe you testified that you attended those
hearings, is that correct? A. Yes.
[622] Q. And when were those hearings held? Do you
recall? A. I cannot remember all of the specific dates. I
do think the first hearing was held on February 16, 1972,
and there were a series of hearings from that time up
until the final adoption of this particular plan.
(. Now did you attend all the hearings, the public hear-
ings, that were held? A. I think I attended all of them,
yes.
Q. Do you recal] whether or not those hearings were held
prior to the referendum on the proposal to increase the
Council to eleven members? <A. If I recall—If I recall
correctly, there were hearings held prior to and after if I
recall correctly.
(). Do you recall whether or not you attended hearings
on the proposal that the Council be increased to a nine-
member Council? <A. I am sure I did, yes.
Q. Now would you agree that both of those plans, that
is, the eleven-man proposal and the nine-man proposal was
submitted to the electorate of the City of New Orleans and
both plans were defeated? A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now after that time, after the second election, did
you attend any public hearings on a proposed redistricting
[623] plan? A. I think I did attend the hearings.
424
Q. Do you recali when that was? A. No, I don’t recall
when that was? <A. No, I don’t recall the specific dates.
Q. Do you recal] whether or not you spoke at that meet-
ing? <A. I recall as best as I can recall I did not person-
ally speak, but someone who represented the views of the
fair districting group did speak.
Q. Do you recall who that was? <A. I cannot recall off-
hand who it was. I do—I think Mr. Galvin was one of the
speakers who was a member of it, Mr. Carl Galvin.
Q. Do you know whether or not the organization which
you just referred to submitted a proposed pian for the re-
districting of the Councilmatic District of the City of New
Orleans? A. We did not submit a five district two at large
councilmatic redistricting plan. However, we asked one
other person who spoke to submit for us a seven district
redistricting plan. This would not have expanded the Coun-
cil as such in terms or enlarged its membership. It would
just have been seven districts.
Q. Are you familiar with the Home Rule Charter of the
City of New Orleans? [624] A. Ina very limited way. I
am familiar with some parts of it.
(). I am referring specifically to the Home Rule Charter
provisions with respect to the Council of the City of New
Orleans. <A. I have read it. I am not sure I can recal] all
of it in detail.
Q. Are you aware that that charter provision is a pro-
vision that calls for two at large counci] seats and five
district councilmatic seats? A. Yes, the charter does that.
Q. Now, Miss Taylor A. My name is Haley.
Judge Robinson: Just a moment.
By Mr. Stoner:
Q. Mrs. Haley, did you participate in the campaign of
Judge Morial, the successful campaign of Judge Morial
when he was elected on a citywide basis? A. To which
seat are you referring, sir?
Q. I am referring to the most recent election when he
was elected to the Court. <A. If I recall correctly, when
425
Judge Morial was elected to the Court of Ap; eals, his most
recent election, the candidate that was running against him
due to illness or some other reason withdraw, and he was
automatically elected.
[625] Q. Did you participate in that campaign? A. If
I recall correctly, there was no, you know, there wasn’t a
campaign because his opponent withdrew.
Q. Well, prior to the time the opponent withdrew, did
you participate in the campaign? A. I was not very ac-
tive in it. I may have I think I did some telephoning for
Judge Morial.
Q. Did you support Judge Morial? A. You are talking
about in the Court of Appeals race?
Q. Yes. A. As I said before, if I recall correctly the
opponent that Judge Mor
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.