# Appendix — Beer v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0215%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 425 U.S. 130 ## 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? Judge Robinson: Mr. Cotton? Mr. Cotton: No. Judge Robinson: Any redirect examination? Mr. Treese: The Court’s indulgence a moment? Judge Robinson: Certainly. (Whereupon, plaintiff counsel confer.) Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, we have no further questions of Councilman Lambert. Judge Robinson: T take it that Mr. Lamvert may be excused. You are excused, sir, although you are welcome to re- main in the courtroom. (Witness excused.) Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, that will be the plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony. 479 With respect to the matters that were raised yesterday [741] referring to the councilman at large, we would like to call one or two matters to the Court’s attention. Judge Robinson: Very well. Mr. Stoner: That is this: Under the charter of the City of New Orleans, the councilmen at large, unlike the dis- trict councilmen, are charged with certain other respon- sibilities. They are members of, for instance, the Sewer and Water Board of the City, that is, one of the council- men at large is; the Board of Liquidation, the Dome Stadium Commission, by example. So, the Court should know that by the charter the two councilmen at large do have additional responsibilities over and above their responsibilities as councilmen on this seven-man council. Mr. Halpin: Your Honor—— Judge Robinson: Just a moment. Can this hold until Mr. Stoner gets through with his presentation? Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. I thought he was winding up. Judge Robinson: Mr. Stoner, may I make a suggestion? Portions of the charter were appended to the complaint in this case. Mr. Stoner: That’s right. Judge Robinson: I take it that the charter—weli, I don’t know. I have seen some rather large city charters. Is it a massive document? [742] Mr. Stoner: I don’t think it is, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: Would it be possible—it doesn’t have to be done today—simply to file a copy of the charter, and you might advise the Court as to the portion or portions that you would want us to examine on the point that you have just mentioned. Mr. Stoner: That will be helpful, Your Honor. May we have leave to file with—— Judge Robinson: Yes. Mr. Halpvin: We have no objection to it. We would like to do that. Mr. Shurtliff: We have no objection. 480 Judge Robinson: We will be calling on you for some filings and you will have ample opportunity to do so. Judge Waddy: Let me ask you this question, Mr. Stoner. Does the charter indicate whether the five councilmanic members who are elected from the districts have any au- thority in changing the at-large method of selecting; in re- districting or selecting, do these five members have any- thing to do with changing the setup as to the number of Mr. Stoner: They don’t, Your Honor. Judge Waddy: Suppose that the proposal to change it to eleven had passed. Would there still have been two mem- bers at large? Mr. Stoner: Yes, Your Honor. Under that proposal, [743] which incidentally was adopted by the City Council, the ordinance did call for two of the eleven to be elected at large and nine to be elected from councilmanic districts. Judge Waddy: Well, now, those two that were to be elected at-large, were they left to be elected at-large be- cause the Council couldn’t change that? Mr. Stoner: No, Your Honor. I assume that any ordi- nance that was adopted by the Council and passed by the voters would be the charter of the city—would be an amendment to the charter of the City of New Orleans. Judge Waddy: Then as I understand it, in any redistrict- ing procedure, this council has a right to do away with the positions of counciiman at large. Mr. Stoner: No, no, no, sir. In a redistricting procedure, no, sir, they do not. The only thing, they had authority to adopt a proposed charter change and to submit it to the electroate. They did that on two occasions. One was the oceasion of the eleven-man council and the other was the occasion of the nine-man council. Now, the City Council as presently constituted adopted that as a proposed ordinance, as an ordinance, and if ap- proved by the people at a general election would have had the effect of amending the city charter of the City of New Orleans. In both cases the electorate defeated the proposed amendment to the charter. 481 [744] So, the present council has the responsibility under the charter of redistricting itself according to a charter provision that provides for two councilmen at large and five councilmen from councilmanic districts. Judge Waddy: So that in the absence of an amendment to the charter, the council has no right to change the posi- tions for councilman at large; is that what you are saying? Mr. Stoner: You are absolutely right, sir. Judge Robinson: I have one other question related to that. Could the council have adopted a proposed ordinance that would have eliminated the councilmen at large? For example, which would have provided for the same nine or the same eleven members of the council but all would be elected from districts. I realize, of course, that means that you have got to make up some other election districts, and then after having acted as the council in that respect, sub- mitted the proposition to the voters of New Orleans as a matter of referendum, and if the voters of New Orleans had approved it at the referendum, would it have auto- matically changed the charter? In other words, what I am trying to find out is: does the charter admit of a change by the machinery that you have mentioned, the adoption by the council of a referendum that would have eliminated at-large councilmen? I don’t know whether you can answer that question or [745] not, but if you can it will be helpful. Mr. Stoner: I believe that I can answer and I believe the answer to that would be yes, it could. However, it would have to also change all other provisions of the city charter which give to the councilman at large other responsibilities over and above those of the district council. Judge Robinson: I can appreciate that. The point that it was within Mr. Stoner: May I just confer with the Assistant City Counsel? Judge Robinson: Certainly. (Whereupon, plaintiff counsel confer.) 4&2 Mr. Stoner: I am informed, Your Honor, that the respon- sibilities which the councilmen at large have over and above the responsibilities that they have as a member of the council, such as the membership on the Sewer and Water Board, the Board of Liquidation, the Dome Stadium Com- mission and so forth, are set by a state law, and not by city charter. So that my previous answer would have to be amended and I would say no, the city council would not have authority to change that without a change in state law. Judge Robinson: Very well. Did you have some further presentation you wished to make at this time? Mr. Stoner: I have one other matter that I wanted to call to the Court’s attention and that is in the petition [746] for intervention which was filed by the intervenors. There was attached a copy of the complaint of the intervenors in Civil Action 73-1862D, which is an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I would like to call to the Court’s attention that on Au- gust 1st, prior to the prior hearing in this case, there was submitted a proposed order in that case by counsel for the intervenors which did not refer to the change of the two councilmen at large but merely asked that court to appoint a special master for the redistricting of the five council- manic districts. I would submit to the Court that counsel for the inter- venors is now coming before this court and asking this court to hold that the two councilmen at large should be changed, which is entirely inconsistent with the position which counsel for the intervenors has previously taken in the Louisiana case. Judge Robinson: Very well, Mr. Stoner. Mr. Stoner: Thank you. Judge Robinson: Now, does that mean that at this point you rest the case for the plaintiffs? Mr. Stoner: We do. Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, I would like— 483 Judge Robinson: Would you come to the lectern. Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. I would like to call some- [747] thing to the attention of the Court too relative to what Mr. Stoner has just said as to the pleading in New Orleans. Mr. Stoner was not present at the conference held there, but Mr. Salatich was, and indeed what he says is true, that pleading was filed. But there was a great deal of discussion in conference as to that not binding us in any shape, form or fashion, and we did consider specifically the question of at-large at that time. There was some question that that court might go forward before this court proceeded and device a districting plan, and under no circumstances were we in that way failing to inform the counsel of our position against the two at-large seats nor were we taking a posi- tion which should be termed as inconsistent with any posi- tion here. Judge Robinson: The complaint filed in the Eastern Dis- trict of Louisiana litigation does not mention in any shape or form any issue with reference to at-large elections or at-large councilmen. Mr. Halpin: That is correct. Judge Robinson: I took pains to recheck it again after yesterday. Mr. Halpin: Yes, that’s true. Judge Robinson: Now, is there anything else in that litigation that developed any issue of that character? Mr. Halpin: No, sir, there was not. Mr. Stoner has re- ferred to another pleading by which we submitted a [748] proposed guideilne for the master. Judge Robinson: And we are advised by the pleadings that that court did appoint a master. Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. Judge Robinson: We do not have a copy of the order of appointment so I can only assume what—Were instructions given in the order appointing the master as to what the master was to do? Mr. Halpin: I will have to check my file. Just a second. I have it with me. My recollection is, though, that the spe- 484 cial master was appointed and the court had called for guidelines and then did issue a brief order appointing the special master. But, as I recall, they were not detailed guidelines. But I will check that in just a moment. Judge Robinson: Well, you can just let me know in the event—Mr. Stoner, would you—Do you want to speak to Mr. Halpin? Mr. Stoner: Yes, I just wanted to raise the question as to whether or not the entire special master procedure was not suspended,—— Judge Robinson: Well, I was going to get to that. Mr. Stoner: —pending the outcome of this suit. Judge Robinson: We were advised that it was, but this was advice given to us, as I recall, in August. I just want to make certain that the situation remains the same. [749] Mr. Halpin: The status of that case is that every- thing there is being held in abeyance pending the disposi- tion of this Court. Judge Robinson: Very well. I don’t think the matter that I inquired about previously is terribly important, but you can just let me know in the event your response, which you Mr. Halpin: All right. Judge Robinson: —stated you were giving from recol- lection is materially accurate. Judge Waddy: Mr. Halpin, do you consider that it is a responsibility of this Court to devise a redistricting plan in this case? Mr. Halpin: Your Honor, I think it is within the power of this Court. The Court in Petersburg essentially gave affirmative relief in terms of saying to the City of Peters- burg . eRe Judge Robinson: It does not specify to set any district lines. Mr. Halpin: No, but it did suggest that, well, if you recreate single member districts, annexation would be all right. What I am suggesting to this Court is that it would be appropriate for this Court perhaps to suggest in terms 485 of relief or guidelines, but it would not be appropriate for this Court to actually devise a redistricting plan. [750] Judge Waddy: You said something that gave me the impression that you were expecting this Court to pre- pare a plan, and I wanted to clear that up. Mr. Halpin: No, sir, under no circumstances. Judge Waddy: I asked Mr. Stoner, who represents the plaintiff here, whether or not that was contemplated in their law suit. Mr. Halpin: No, Your Honor, I think not. Judge Robinson: I haven’t looked at the order in Peters- burg on this aspect of it, but the opinion makes it plain that all that that court did in the Petersburg case was to say, that is, to say to the city, you may go forward with your annexation provided you conduct your councilmanic elections from here on on a ward rather than on an at-large basis. Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. Judge Robinson: Which in the view of the court in that litigation would have eliminated any possibility of diluting the vote of any citizens of the city. Mr. Halpin: All right. Along the same lines, I am sug- gesting that—I’m sorry. Judge Robinson: Do you think that the litigation before the court is going to give this Court an opportunity to make a disposition assuming that we should reach that point by way of decision, a disposition that would be that simple and clear cut? [751] Mr. Halpin: Well, this is a more complex case, but I would suggest that the remedial area of the Court does lie in that fashion. I think what we are asking this Court to say is that, you know, should the City Council of New Orleans be elected from single member districts which are not gerrymandered in any shape, fashion or form, and such would appear to be in compliance with Section 5. That, I think, would be parallel to what the court 486 Judge Robinson: Doesn’t that Section 5 limit the author- ity of this Court in this case and the disposition to be made simply to a declaratory judgment? Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir, I think it does. Nevertheless, I think that, of course, we have the problem, for instance, with the Justice Department. When they do object to a plan or approve a plan, frequently the reasons are not detailed—are not stated in great detail, and the Council has been heard to observed repeatedly, ‘‘ Weil, they didn’t know what they were supposed to do.’’ I think it would be appropriate for this Court to give, nevertheless, some explanation or guidelines or so on if they do find that the City Council has not met its burden, so that in the future they might know better what to do. Judge Robinson: Well, I wasn’t trying to pressure you. Like Judge Waddy, I just wanted to clarify your expec- tation. We will be calling on you for briefs. I will get to [752] that in a few minutes. Now, Mr. Halpin, when Mr. Stoner had the lectern, you arose. Have you covered the matter that you intended to bring up? Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. This was the matter that I wanted to clarify. Judge Robinson: This is a bit out of order but this is out of the normal progression of inquiring of counsel, but I take it that the intervenors submit their case in toto at this point; do they? Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: Very well. Mr. Stoner, would you return to the lectern. Just Cor- coran has a question for you. Judge Corcoran: I don’t know whether you can answer it or not, Mr. Stoner, but I am sure the city attorney can. In connection with these at-large seats, these two at-large seats, has there been any change in the boundaries of the city since the 1960 census? Has there been any annexation? 487 Mr. Stoner: To my knowledge there has been none since the home rule charter was adopted in 1954. But may I check that with Mr. Salatich? I am informed, Your Honor, that there have been no changes in the city boundaries of the City of New Orleans [753] since 1912, and the present home rule charter which is before the Court was adopted in 1954. So, the question of annexation as in Petersburg—as being involved in the Petersburg case is not involved in this case at all. Judge Robinson: Mr. Stoner, we just want to make sure, did the plaintiffs put in all the exhibits that they intend to put in evidence in this case? Judge Corcoran: You haven’t designated the depositions. Mr. Stoner: The only matter pending, Your Honor, would be the depositions which have been taken at our direction. I though by stipulation we had previously agreed that all depositions Judge Robinson: That’s correct. Mr. Stoner: —would be admitted into evidence for the purpose expressed in the depositions. Judge Robinson: But your last reference was to what? I didn’t quite follow you. Mr. Stoner: Well, I believe the government has formally offered the depositions which they had taken and assigned to them an exhibit number. We have not done that to our deposition. We would be happy to do so if the Court would like those depositions to be designated by an exhibit num- ber. Judge Robinson: No, I don’t know that that would be necessary. I just want to be clear on this. What the [754] plaintiffs desire would be all depositions of all deposed witness es in evidence for consideration by the Court? Mr. Stoner: That’s right, Your Honor. It was my under- standing that was the stipulation between the parties. Judge Robinson: It was my understanding that we so decided on yesterday, gentlemen. 488 Judge Waddy: I believe all of the maps and other docu- ments were admitted into evidence the first day. 1 have a list of some fifteen exhibits. Mr. Stoner: Yes, that’s right. The Deputy Clerk: All except No. 16. Judge Waddy: No. 15 was not? The Deputy Clerk: It is the only one that is not ad- mitted, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: What is No. 16? The Deputy Clerk: It’s an opinion with a letter attached. Judge Waddy: It was a letter. No. 16 was a letter con- taining an opinion. Was that it? The Deputy Clerk: I guess that’s what it was, Your Honor. Mr. Stoner: I am sorry if I overlooked it. The exhibit number is marked as though it is in evidence. The Deputy Clerk: I guess it is. Judge Robinson: Yes, I notice. [755] Judge Waddy: I had noted that all 16 were in. The Deputy Clerk: Right, yes. Judge Robinson: Very well. That square you away; does it? Mr. Stoner: It does, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: Mr. Shurtliff. Mr. Shurtliff: May it please the Court. Judge Robinson: Now, we have one final matter for you and that is Exhibit No. 31, that we will have to make a determination on. But before getting to it, do you have any- thing else? Mr. Shaurtliff: On the depositions, Your Honor, if I may. Judge Robinson: Yes. Move to the lectern, will you please. Mr. Shurtliff: The depositions that we offered earlier on today were depositions taken earlier in this case before the trial was taken in August. There are now eight deposi- tions that have not been offered, that our understanding is would be jointly offered, and we have asked the Clerk to mark those eight depositions as joint exhibits, and pur- 489 suant to the stipulation had agreed to any they are marked Joint Exhibits 1 through 8. The Deputy Clerk: I just put No. 1. Mr. Shurtliff: I see. That is my understanding. [756] We did not previously offer the depositions taken at our request. Judge Robinson: You are speaking now of the matters stipulated which you advised us of earlier today? Mr. Shurtliff: Right. Judge Robinson: Very well. Now, just before getting to Exhibit 31, may I inquire of all counsel, does the Court now have on file in the court all of these depositions? | Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I was informed by the Clerk yesterday that the originals of all the depositions have been received in the Clerk’s Office. Judge Robinson: Yes, I understand. We will take care of that. I just wanted to make certain. Judge Waddy: We were short of one yesterday, Madam Clerk. The Deputy Clerk: They are all on as far as the docket sheet is concerned. Judge Waddy: You did find that one that you couldn’t locate? The Deputy Clerk: Yes, sir. There are eight of them in all. Judge Robinson: To put all counsel at ease, a check has been made. Everything that has been filed is available to the Court. All right, Mr. Shurtliff, do we arrive at Exhibit 31 [757] again at this point or do you have something else? Mr. Shurtliff: I believe that we do. Your Honor. Judge Robinson: All right. Let me inquire of Mr. Treese and Mr. Stoner. Gentlemen, have you had an opportunity to look at that? Mr. Treese: Yes, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: At that publication? Mr. Treese: Yes, although not in great depth. But the first thing that catches our eye is that it was published in 490 March of 1961. Apparently it was proposed by a Louis E. Neuman with assistance provided by Bruce J. Borrello. I have been unable to locate anyone who has any knowledge of those gentlemen. Because of the date of the publication, we would hold it completely—we would urge this Court to consider it completely irrelevant. Mr. Treese: March of 1961. Judge Robinson: You say 1961? Judge Robinson: I understood earlier today that this is a historical treatment of some sort. Mr. Treese: It is in substantial part, Your Honor, with- out question. But it comes to conclusions and states opin- ions and it is Judge Robinson: We are not being requested to give any consideration at all to matters of conclusion or opinion. Mr. Treese: Frankly, Your Honor, we just have not [758] had the time to totally review it. It is a 70-page document based on facts prior to 1961. There is substantial statis- tical Judge Robinson: We will give you that opportunity. You certainly are entitled to that. Mr. Treese: We stand on our position, Your Honor. We will continue to objection even after we study it. Judge Robinson: Well, we will reserve our decision on both. You are objecting to admissibility and not weight? Mr. Treese: Certainly. Judge Robinson: But, gentlemen, it is awfully difficult for us to make a ruling without having seen the document. So, we have other things to be decided in this case. I think you can rest with assurance that we will decide this along with everything else before the case is finally completed. Mr. Halpin: If it may please the Court, our position with respect to this document is that we would just like to have it available to the Court as a published document which is not generally available and, if allowed in the record as a proffer, will be at least in the Court’s library. Judge Robinson: Mr. Treese? Mr. Treese: Yes, agreeable. 491 Judge Robinson: In pondering this case, if I felt a need to know more about the history of voting in the City of New Orleans, why couldn’t I go to a library and, assum- ing that [759] such an historical work is available, why couldn’t I examine it? Mr. Treese: I can rely on Mr. Halpin’s previous remark that it is not generally available and he wants it in the court file. This organization is not a quasi-public organi- zation that it was represented to be earlier. It is a private organization. Judge Waddy: Suppose any author prepared a book and we wanted to look at it from an historical standpoint. Wouldn’t we have a right to do so? Mr. Treese: I am sure you would, Your Honor. Judge Robinson: And we are accustomd to, I think, mak- ing pretty valid judgments as to how much weight should be given to something, and counsel for the government has made it plain that matters of opinion, conclusion, in- terpretation and that sort of thing are not the object of this proffer. It is being tendered simply for the factual information that it contains. Mr. Treese: May I make this request in light of what the Court has just stated? May we contact the publishers and the authors of this document to ascertain whether a more current or an updated version of this is available, and may we also have the opportunity of perhaps depos- ing the authors as to some of the facts that they have uncovered in here? I am not saying we are going to do this, but if the Court would [760] grant us a fixed number of days within which to accomplish this task, we would appreciate it. Judge Robinson: We will do that. I think that under the circumstances, since you have not had the opportunity of thoroughly examining 70 pages, if you run across some other histories of the City of New Orleans and you wanted to lodge them with the Court for its edification, that the Court would not object. Personally, I want all the light that I can get on the subject before this case is decided. 492 How much time do you want for that purpose, Mr. Treese? Mr. Treese: May we have ten days? Judge Robinson: Oh, certainly. Mr. Treese: Thank you. Judge Robinson: Would you advise us as to how you come out on that? I mean by that se that we will know whether we need to hold matters any longer on that account. Mr. Treese: Yes, sir. Judge Robinson: All right, gentlemen, so much for Ex- hibit 31. Now, I take it that you gentlemen want to submit argu- ment to the Court. The Court is expecting it anyway. Mr. Stoner: Yes. My only hesitation, Your Honor, was that you had previously mentioned that the Court would be asking for briefs. [761] Judge Robinson: Yes. Mr. Stoner: I was wondering if maybe oral argument might not be more valuable after the submission rather than prior to. Judge Robinson: Absolutely. Our view on the matter is that a case of this magnitude and importance ought to be thoroughly and carefully briefed. We shall give you on opportunity to file your briefs. If any of you gentlemen want to orally argue the case, personally I would welcome it. We would set a date and have you come back and present your arguments at that time which certainly, I think, would be much more meaningful to everybody con- cerned. It might be helpful if we took a brief recess to permit you gentlemen to confer amongst yourselves as to how much time you might want and maybe to work out a little informal briefing schedule of your own. You must bear in mind that before you can do the job capably, you are going to have to wait on the transcripts, and at the moment I don’t know exactly how much time they are going to take. I think you can get it done a lot better and a lot faster than simply by moving from counsel to counsel. 493 Do you want to file simultaneous briefs or do you want the briefs filed in series? For example, briefs for the plain- tiffs first, then for the government, then perhaps for the intervenors, with provision for replies and that type of [762-766] thing? I would think, gentlemen, that ten minutes ought to be sufficient to enable you to do that. In the meanwhile, while that is going on, the Court itself will investigate to the extent to which it is able to try to find out how soon transcripts can be made avail- able to counsel and to the Court. Mr. Marshal, at this point the Court will stand in reces for ten minutes. (Whereupon, at 2:58 o’clock p.m., a short recess was taken.) [767] Arter REcEss Judge Robinson: It is our understanding that counsel have already been advised that the transcripts of the entire trial including today’s proceedings will be available on Tuesday. Gentlemen, have you managed to work something out? Are you the spokesman, Mr. Stoner? Mr. Stoner: May it please the Court, we have conferred. I don’t know that we are in agreement. We will submit our proposal to the Court. Our proposal was that all parties file simultaneous briefs within thirty days, and that thereafter each party be given fifteen days to answer the original brief, and to file a reply to the brief of the other parties. Judge Robinson: All right, sir. Mr. Shurtliff. Mr. Shurtliff: May it please the Court, it was the Gov- ernment’s judgment that the best way to proceed would be for the plaintiffs as the party with the burden to file a brief, a somewhat lesser time for the Government to re- spond and file its brief in chief, and some time thereafter for plaintiffs to respond to the Government’s brief. 494 Judge Robinson: That method, of course does have an advantage. In terms of this case, however, it has a dis- advantage. I suppose the suggestion made on behalf of the plaintiffs was calculated to save as much time as possible. [768] Is that correct, gentlemen? Attorneys: Yes. Judge Robinson: And usually simultaneous briefs are calculated in that direction, and sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. All right. Do you have a view on this, Mr. Halpin? Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor. We, of course, are also of the position that things should be expedited. The elec- tions in New Orleans have been enjoined, and the present councilmen remain in office until. However, we feel that a series of briefs would be more appropriate and that it would not take more time. The schedule suggested by Mr. Stoner is thirty, and fif- teen, which would be forty-five. I see no reason why we couldn’t have the plaintiffs file their brief within say twenty-five days. We could respond within ten, and the plaintiffs could reply with another five, which would still have us at the forty-five day period, which I think would expedite matters. I think it would be more appropriate to understand since the plaintiffs do have the burden ef proof exactly what they alleged have proved in this case. Judge Robinson: If, Mr. Halpin Mr. Halpin: Yes, sir. Judge Robinson: —we adopted the suggestion made [769] by the Government, and by you, and gave the plain- tiffs the full thirty days, since they carry the burden of proof to make their initial filing, it is my understanding that you could have your brief in within ten days from the time the plaintiff files? Mr. Halpin: Yes, Your Honor, we could. Judge Robinson: All right. How much time would it take the Government if we move to a series type filing instead of a simultaneous filing, Mr. Shurtliff? 495 Mr. Shurtliff: We could respond within ten. I would sug- gest that from my point of view that twenty-five days for plaintiffs and fifteen for the response, and ten for the reply, would bring us to fifty. Judge Robinson: Twenty-five, fifteen and ten. Mr. Shurtliff: To fifty days. Judge Robinson: Where does that leave you, Mr. Stoner? We are talking about a difference of five days. Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, my original thinking in asking for simultaneous briefs is that this is a brief that is being filed immediately following the trial. Now all of the parties have heard the testimony. They know the testimony. It is all available to everyone, and it would seem to us that the filing of simultaneous briefs puts everybody to work on this case and keeps them work- ing right now, and in our opinion the Government and the intervenors have an adequate opportunity to comment, and discuss, and [770] present to the Court their arguments with respect to the evidence that has been submitted here to this trial, and we really believe that there is more pro- bative value in the briefs by calling for simultaneous briefs. Judge Robinson: Well, as I indicated earlier Mr. Stoner: The tendency seriatim is for the other party merely to sit back and throw darts, if I may say, in the plaintiffs’ brief, and as opposed to taking the broad view of all the testimony in evidence that has been adduced at the trial. Judge Robinson: In the Court of Appeals we have the filings both ways. The usual method is to have them filed in series. However, when we run into a situation in which we really want to expedite consideration and decision, we frequently go to simultaneous briefs, so there are advan- tages and there are disadvantages. In terms of total time, I can only see two consequences, two differences rather, between the procedure you advocate and that suggested by the Government and by the inter- venors. 496 Your initial filing period will be twenty-five days rather than thirty, and the overall filing period would be fifty days instead of forty-five. Well, gentlemen, let me confer with my colleagues and see what their wishes are in that regard. [771] (Judge Robinson conferring with Judges Waddy and Corcoran.) Judge Robinson: Gentlemen, the Court has conferred. I might say to you that I don’t think in any event the dif- ferences are very great. We have come up with a time- table, Mr. Stoner, that is within ten days of yours, and at the same time preserves the benefits that counsel for the Government and the intervenors are trying to pre- serve, and also would accord the unanimous preference of the Court to have these briefs filed in series. This case certainly deserves all the expedition the Court can give it. There is no doubt about it, and the way the Court has proceeded in this case, I think it would demon- strate to all concerned that the Court has spent every possible effort to expedite this case as much as possible. At the same time, this Court, as all other Courts, is concerned about the quality of its product and there is one other circumstance in this case that may not obtain in the ordinary run of litigation, and that is, of course, the magnitude of the burden that plaintiffs carry in this case. It is, of course, a little difficult to write a brief for the defendant when the defendant is not quite as certain as to just how the plaintiffs in the case would undertake to discharge that burden. [772] We have decided, gentlemen, that the allotments will be of this fashion: The plaintiffs will be permitted the thirty days, the full thirty days, from the availability of the transcript within which to file the brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, that is the opening brief. The defendant and the intervenors will be indulged fif- teen days following the filing of the plaintiffs’ brief within which to file their respective briefs. The plaintiffs will 497 then be indulged ten days from the date of the filing of the latter of either the Government’s brief and the inter- venor’s brief, whichever comes last, to file their reply briefs. The outside limits in this regard, gentlemen, as you will immediately see, the outside limit is fifty-five days, and if somebody makes an earlier filing, it means it will be just to that extent shortened. I would like to suggest to council that if you have spe- cific findings of fact or conclusions of law that you wish to propose to the Court, please incorporate that as a part of your submission. I will also call attention to the fact that the Court still has pending before it one unresolved issue, and that is the issue presented by the intervenors on which this morning the Court’s ruling was reserved, and there is a possibility that some adjustments in this regard might have to be [773] made dependent upon whether counsel for the plaintiffs decide that they need to take further depositions in connection with Exhibit 31 which was turned in to the Court yesterday. [ want to be perfectly clear about this in case I haven’t been on behalf of the Court. If the plaintiffs file in less than thirty days, the time for the defendant and the inter- venors to file will begin to run that much faster, and so also, gentlemen, if they don’t use their full fifteen days, for the filing of their briefs, your time on filing reply briefs will be shortened. The final matter is the question of oral argument. It is the view of the Court that a date for oral argument can best be set after you gentlemen file. Now once you get your filings completed, we of course, will need a reasonable amount of time to review all mate- rials in this case in order to get prepared for oral argu- ment. You will have the assurance of the Court that we would fix the date for oral argument as expeditiously as circum- stances including other work of the members of the panel will permit. 498 Is there anything further, gentlemen, before the Court concludes this phase of this litigation? Mr. Stoner: Your Honor, I would have one inquiry of the Court, and that is whether or not the Cour: would [774] contemplate awaiting a ruling on Mr. Halpin’s re- quest of yesterday which the Court reserved a ruling this morning. Will the Court reserve a ruling on that issue until all the briefs are in and until the whole matter is submitted as a whole? Judge Robinson: Yes. Mr. Stoner: Or would the Court contemplate ruling on that in the interim period? Judge Robinson: What I was trying to convey a few minutes ago and when I mentioned it is you gentlemen would present your written arguments as a part of the written submissions you will make, and you, of course, will have opportunity at oral argument when that day arrives to address yourselves, orally, to it, which means, of course, that we will be deciding that when in all prob- ability we decide the rest of the case. Mr. Stoner: Thank you. 499 Deposition of Mr. Joseph V. Di Rosa October 5, 1973 [1] Deposition of Mr. Josep V. Di Rosa, taken in the above entitled cause, before Howard E. Stumpf, an Official Court Reporter, authorized to administer oaths of wit- nesses pursuant to Section 961.1 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended, pursuant to the following stipulation, given in Suite 2 W 23, City Attorney’s office, City [2] Hall, 1300 Perdido Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, on the 5th day of October, 1973. Appearances: Stoner, Treese & Ruffner (By: James R. Stoner, Esq.) For the Plaintiffs (New Orleans City Council) Nathaniel Friends, Esq. and M. Karl Shurtliff, Esq. For the Department of Justice United States of America Kidd, Katz & Halpin (By: Stanley A. Halpin, Jr., Esq.) Johnny Jackson, et al Reported by: Howard E. Stumpf, Official Court Reporter [3] STIPULATION It is stipulated and agreed that the testimony of Mr. JosePH V. Dr Rosa is hereby being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of dis- covery. The formalities of signing, sealing and certifica- tion are waived. All objections, except those as to the form of the question, are reserved until the time of the trial of the cause. 500 Mr. Josepn V. Di Rosa, Room 2 E 09, City Hall, 1300 Perdido Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, a witness named in the above stipulation, being first duly sworn in the cause, testified on his oath as follows: By Mr. Shurtliff: Q. Would you state your name for us, Sirt A. Name is Joseph V. Di Rosa. Q. And your occupation, Sir? A. I’m an attorney-certi- fied public accountant and Councilman, You want to put all those things? Q. How much time do you spend in your [4] Council- manic duties, Sir? A. You know these Councilman is sup- posed to be part-time, but it’s one of the jobs where you can spend no time or all day depending more or less on how conscientious you are. I would say I would spend more than three-quarters of my time here I would guess. Q. How long have you held that office? A. I’m in my eighth year. Q. You’ve been elected twice previously? A. I was elected once, lost once and came back again. Q. Which district do you represent, Sir? A. I’m city- wide. I’m at large. Q. Did you ever represent a district? A. Not as such. I was at large before I lost at large to Moon, and I won now at large. Q. And you’re referring to you lost to Moon Landrieu? A. Right. Q. What year was that, Sir? A. ’66 I think it was. Q. So you were first elected in ’62? [5] A. ’62, right. Q. Defeated in ’66— A. Right. Q. —and re-elected in ’70? A. Right. Q. In 1962 when you first ran how many candidates were there for the at-large post? A. I think there were nine. Q. Was there a runoff? A. Yes. Q. Were you in the runoff? A. Right. There were four of us in the runoff. 501 Q. And by that I take it that nobody won a majority in the first? A. That’s right. Q. So four candidates ran in the runoff to select two who subsequently won? A. Right. Q. Who else won in that runoff election? A. Fitzmorris, Fitzmorris and I. Landrieu and Eddie Price were de- feated. Price ran third and Landrieu fourth. Q. Do you recall what percentage of the vote you re- ceived from that election? [6] A. No, I really don’t. Q. In ’66 how many candidates were there for the at- large post? A. I think about, let me see, ’66, I don’t re- member offhand, but I would guess about the same num- ber, maybe a few more. I don’t know, but about nine. But I’m guessing. Q. Certainly. Was there a runoff that year? A. Yes. There was a runoff between Landrieu and I. That was in the ’66 election. (). So one person was elected— A. Right. Q. —in the first primary? A. Right. Q. Who was that? A. Fitzmorris. No. That wasn’t Fitzmorris. That was Pitre, John Pitre, because Fitz- morris ran for mayor that time. Q. In 1970 how many candidates were there for the at-large post? A. I’m trying to think, but I don’t really remember, but same thing happened. There was a runoff there. Moreau was elected. Moreau ran on several of the [7] tickets, on Landrieu’s ticket also, and he was elected in the first primary. I missed the first primary by 1500 votes, and I won in the second primary against Morial. Q. What was Mr. Morial’s race? A. Black. Q. Was he the only black in the field for the at-large post? A. I don’t remember if he was, no. Gee I don’t remember. I really don’t. Q. Did you run seconc in the first primary? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Morial run third? A. Right. 502 Q. In the at-large elections were there two seats to be filled, Councilman Di Rosa? Is there a full slate require- ment? A. In what way a full slate? Q. Do voters have to vote fortwo? A. Yes. Q. And what happens if they only vote for one candi- date? A. The vote is void. Q. And has this been the case in all of the [8] elections that you participated in? A. Since the Charter was first instituted. That was in 1952. Q. And there’s always been a majority runoff require- ment? A. Yes, right. Q. As a political candidate how do you campaign with the full slate, by that I mean voters have to vote for, what do you tell your supporters? A. Actually what you did each one runs on his own. That’s in effect what happens, and I ran as an independent each time I was on some ticket but not well some tickets you’re on, some tickets you were not on, and that’s in effect how you run. From a practical standpoint you run as an independent and you’re elected. That way each guy runs on his own. Every can- didate runs on his own. See there’s no teaming up as such in most instances. If you’re on one ticket, for ex- ample I was on Guste’s ticket I believe with Morial. So we used to go together, and you talk for yourself in each of the instances, and tell them to remember you have to vote for two, me and somebody else. Q. Now let me ask you. What do you tell your wife? Do you tell your wife to vote for you and a weak candi- date? Mr. Stoner: I object to that question. I object to the question. I think it’s highly personal matter. By Mr. Shurtliff: Q. Your objection is noted. Mr. Di Rosa? A. You want me to answer that? Q. Certainly. A. You mean what did I tell my wife? To be frank I never tell her anything. If she votes I just 503 hope she votes for me, and at times she comes out and says I don’t even know whether I’m going to vote for you, if you want to know the truth. Q. As a practical matter do candidates that are run- ning for the at-large seats encourage their supporters to vote for [10] them and a weak candidate? A. No, It’s imposition to be frank with you. I’ll tell you why. I tell you that from my standpoint because you’re too interested in trying to get yourself. You know it’s pretty much an imposition to expect to tell somebody to vote for me and somebody else. You’re doing enough when you ask them to vote for you, and in many instances if you attempt to do that you run a pretty good chance of losing your own vote. In fact, to be frank with you, that’s one of the ways I lost in 1966, because I was trying to help a district coun- cilman, and one of the black preachers was with me at the time, and he went against me and the other guy, too, because I pressed him, tried to get them to vote for a dis- trict councilman who was on the council with us at the time. Q. You mentioned ticketing, Councilman Di Rosa, on vari- ous tickets, or what is that process? [11] A. That proc- ess is that seme mayoralty condidates will get together and try to form what he considers a team, and he gets the two Councilmen-at-large, the District Councilmen race, some of the parochial offices and whatever else happens to be running at the time. The main purpose or one of the big purposes for it is to try to reduce the cost of the election by contributing a part to the general operation of the whole campaign. See first you have to be selected on his ticket, and second you pay for some of the expenses attributable to the campaign, mailing ballots, sample ballots, things of that nature. Q. How does the selection process take place? A. It’s mostly in his mind as far as candidate is concerned. I’m talking about the mayoralty candidates. I couldn’t tell you, some factors go into it, some don’t. I don’t know what o04 they use as a basis. I guess they look at your voters’ ap- peal and [12] see if there’s any possibility in getting you with them on that basis. Q. You indicate that you were on Mr. Guste’s ticket? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was Mr. Guste running for? A. Mayor. Judge Gertler also, he ran for mayor. Q. Are there other organizations or individuals that put tickets together other than candidates for mayor? A. Yes. There are hundreds of them. They have so many of them that it’s almost an impractical problem to attempt to pay the cost of ballots and things that go into the canvassing. It’s almost gotten, in fact it has gotten out of hand com- pletely. Q. You say hundreds. How long have there been hun- dreds? A. Well that’s an exaggeration— Q. Certainly, I understand. A. —but I would say, oh I say each year it starts to get worse, not only every four years but each year the election [13] comes. Every election that they have a new group seems to form you know to start politicking or campaigning. Q. In 1962 how many organizations were there, could you estimate, that were engaged in that? A. ’627 Q. Of 62. A. I guess there were about 15, 20 major ones that you would call. You know one of them was the OPPVL that you’re talking about, we’re talking about; CCPL. That’s one run by Chink Henry. OPPVL is Reverend Davis. Q. Is Reverend Davis black? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Mr. Henry black? A. Right. Q. Were there any other large predominant organiza- tions? A. Well the Old Regulars, that’s one; organization they had what they call CCDA. That’s Crescent City Dem- ocratic Association. Those two are white. Q. Right. [14] A. And then they had, I don’t know if the other one was started at that time, they had two other black organizations that were fragmented, but they’ve 905 joined together since. Some of them have and some of them have been separated. Q. Was there a Regular Democratic Organization? A. Yes. Q. That was known as RDO? A. Right. Q. Was it white or black organization? A. White. @. And when you say white organization or a black or- ganization, Councilman, what do you mean by that? A. The members are predominantly white or predominantly black. Q. Does that hold true today with this proliferation of the organizations? Are memberships of those organi- zations predominantly black or white? A. It holds more true in the white than in the black. The black is predomi- nantly black or almost exclusively black, and [15] the white is sort of assimilous group, you know mixture of both. Q. Is the RDO still extant? A. No. It’s still in exist- ence, yes. Q. Is it predominantly white or black? A. Yes, it’s predominantly white. Q. Does it have the weight that it used to? A. No. Q. Do any of them? A. I doubt it, and the reason I say that is because when you have what they call ward meet- ings or precinct meetings you know you usually see a very small turnout. People just don’t seem to be as interested in elections as they were at other times. I guess there’s too much other entertainment. Q. Was politics a form of entertainment in your life- time in New Orleans? A. It was a form of entertainment all over the country I believe insofar as even from the standpoint that it was something to do, a place to get out or joining together of people to meet each other and see each other. You [16] know they didn’t have the television or radio factors, but people were looking for an occasion to get out, and that gave them that. Q. Did they have ward headquarters here? A. Yes. 506 Q. Ward community center as such? A. Yes, wards, precincts, things like that. Q. Do they still have? A. Yes. Q. What goes on at those, how often do they meet at the community centers or ward headquarters? A. At election time they try to keep them open as much as they can to try and encourage voters to call people, really in general to get a movement on the part of the people to move for whatever candidates they seem to be espousing the caues of. Q. In 1970 you ran against Mr. Morial in che runoff election. Is that correct? A. Yes, that’s rigat. Q. What were the major issues in the runoff election? [17] A. None at all really. We didn’t have any other than we had in the beginning, questions of the City, what you could do, experience, background, education. That’s the only thing I stressed in mine. Q. What percentage of the vote did you receive in the runoff election, do you recall? A. About 52 I would guess. Q. Do you believe that Mr. Morial’s race played a part in that election? A. I think it played a part in him getting the vote that he got, yes. I think there’s more of a tendency on the part of the blacks to vote as a group than it is on the part of the whites. Q. You believe that to be the case? A. Yes. Q. Do you believe it to still be the case? A. Yes, Q. What do you base that conclusion on, Councilman? A. Oh nothing but speculation. Q. Did you analyze the results? A. Yes, some results. For example, that they [18] were totally black you might get something like 386 votes to 2. I think that would give you some indication that that might be a block vote. Q. How about the white precincts? A. I had none that went that way. In fact my own precinct that runs roughly around 450 votes where I live I only won it by 65, and that’s predominantly white. Q. Have you observed this block voting in other elec- tions? A. Yes. I think it’s a matter of fact I think. 507 Q. Could you recite some of the elections that you believe that black voting has occurred in? A. I think in almost all the elections I know of none where it has not, to be frank with you. Q. And it’s your opinion that it’s more in the black community than— A. Right. Q.—than in the white? A. Right. [19] Q. Do you have an opinion as to the underlying cause of that block vote? A. No, I don’t. Q. How about in other elections other than for election of candidates, say on referendum elections or other con- stitutional amendments— A. Yes, Sir. Q. —for instance is there block voting? A. It’s pro- nounced to some extent, but not quite as mwa I don’t believe. Q. Let me jump ahead. A. To be frank, what happens in most of those constitutional elections people get all disgusted with voting so much and so many and just don’t vote at all, have a tendency tu vote against them. Q. The issue of increasing the size of the City Council was put to the people in the form of a referendum this last year? A. (Witness nodded affirmatively). Q. Do you believe that block voting played a part in those elections? A. I think they did. [20] Q. And how so, Sir? A. I think it did only in the sense that the cause of increasing was espoused more by the certain groups, but they, no, that’s not so come to think of it because they did have a group, in fact it was espoused even by the papers, the increase you know. So you couldn’t put it necessarily as a block as such. No, I couldn’t say that in this instance. Q. How about the results though? A. Well same thing, result was mixed, and the vote was light. Q. Other than the newspapers do you know the names of any white organizations that supported the proposal besides the City Council? A. I think most of them came out for it as I recall. I don’t remember offhand. I couldn’t tell you to be frank with you. 508 Q. Were you in favor of that proposal? A. No, I was not. Q. Did you speak out in opposition to that? [21] A. No. I just let it go. I spoke out on the Council, and the reason for it is that I believe in a Metropolitan Govern- ment, and I was trying to join the two parishes together, Orleans and Jefferson. We have five districts and two at-large, and so do they. My proposal was that they put the two parishes together, see with the five district council- men, two at-large of that, Parish President as the Presi- dent of both groups and the Mayor as the President of the whole thing, just as they’re doing in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, trying to make some sort of a Metropolitan Gov- ernment. I think from a financial standpoint it’s some- thing that will come and has to come. Q. Do you know of any of the councilmen, present in- cumbent councilmen that spoke out in favor of increasing the size of the City Council? A. I couldn’t speak for the rest of them, whether they spoke out for it, Lat they had enough votes to pass it. [22] Q. Are you familiar with any of them taking a pub- lie stand in favor of the proposition? A. Well you take a public stand when you vote for it or against it. Q. Other than that expression? A. I don’t know whether they went out and actually knocked on doors or anything of that sort. I couldn’t tell you. I didn’t either for or against it. I did speak out on the Council when it came up for a vote, and at that time I stated the reasons that I just mentioned now, and then let it go at that. Q. Are you familiar with any organizations that were opposed to the Council extension? A. No, not that I know of. I never paid that much attention to it or interest in it. Q. Was there much interest in it? A. Well they had enough votes in it. I tell you during the elections if you got too many people voting on too many things the people get disgusted by [23] the time they get to the bottom. 299 Q. Do you think that’s what happened? A. I think it was. It would have been defeated by a larger vote if it had not. Q. If there would have been fewer proposals on the ballot? A. Right. That’s my personal opinion of course. A lot of the opposition was built on the increase in costs you know by some of the people that were opposed to it. Q. Cost of more members? A. More councilmen, more all the other things that go into it, keeping them moving or keeping the office operating. Q. Councilman Di Rosa, the question of the redistrict- ing has been the subject of consideration by the Council now for something on two years [I expect? A. That’s right. Q. At the time that the Council first became interested in redistricting could you indicate what they did? A. What we did at that time? Q. Yes. [24] A. Sure. At the time we first became, in fact we have to by Charter. You know according to the Charter every ten years we must redistrict. There’s no if, and or but, but you must redistrict. So we wait for the returns to come in on the census. After the census comes in by blocks, which is called as I understand the fourth reading or the final figures, we then go in and apportion in accordance with what we believe to be the Supreme Court’s decision, one man, one vote. That is 119,000 I heard I think it was per district. So we have to get the five districts in that order. One of the problems we had was with Algiers you know the representation at that time. So we had to increase some districts and reduce others. So we though at that time that if they put Algiers into three districts and gave three councilmen those dis- tricts, that they would be more responsive to the people in Algiers and they would [25] have more representation for one thing since that had to be broken, at least that was my thinking, and, of course, I’m not attempting to speak for the others because I couldn’t tell you what their reasoning was. But we did it at that time, and according 510 to law we sent it up to the Justice Department. They sent it back saying they believe this is discriminating, but that’s all, never give us any other guidelines or any other rea- sons. Had they come up at that time we ought to go east-west and not north-south and follow the historic boundaries, we would have gone to court at that time. But in the meantime I think you know the sequence of events. Then we went to the proposed 11-man council and then to the 9-man council, and then went back to another redistricting plan. That’s plan that we have is presently before the court now that was done on the same basis that we believed to be the guidelines as set [26] out by the Federal Government, Supreme Court I’m speaking of, and their guidelines was that you follow historie bound- aries, you follow natural boundaries and you know that’s one of the reasons instead of putting, instead of saying they belong as a group, and of course the number 119,000 or one-fifth each, even though we knew the Supreme Court had allowed variants of as much as humanly possible be- cause of the outlines in the Charter that were set out in 1952 that said every ten years we have to redistrict. It was quite obvious that we needed some definite guidelines when the Federal Government, the Justice Department came out and said that we redistrict on the basis of east- west configuration. Well we thought that was absolutely ridiculous because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the configuration should follow, and so did the Supreme Court as I understand, north-south [27] bound- aries, follow the historic boundaries. Now we have had wards since 1902 with the same outline. Assessors run from wards. Everything is set up on a ward basis, and that’s one of the reasons we went into that type of con- figuration that we went into at this time. Now I wouldn’t doubt that there might be over 5,000 different variations of that that you have to make. As I understand the Snu- preme Court decision is to the effect that the decision should be made by the bodies that have to make it, elected 511 to do so, and that’s us, and unless you can, as I understand it, show that something was done that was intended to in some way discriminate against anybody that it would be allowed. Q. You mentioned that assessors run from wards. Councilman DiRosa, is it not true that they run from combination of wards? A. But the ward boundaries is what follows the [28] outlines. Q. You also mentioned the Fifth Circuit decision or decisions relative to Senators? A. The Senatorial race was held on the northsouth configuration and to a great extent followed almost exactly what we have. Q. And the Supreme Court decision to which you referred was what, Sir? A. Well I don’t know the citation. Q. It’s not concerned specifically with New Orleans. Is that correct? A. Right. Q. How about the United States District Court opinion from the Middle District of Louisiana, Judge West’s decision, respecting the House of Representatives? Did you consider that? A. No. I undestand that was not appealed. Q. Did you consider that opinion? A. Did we consider the opinion? Well we considered the Court of Appeal more than we did the District Court. Q. Why is that? [29] [A] Because it is a higher court and it has more jurisdiction over the others. I think that’s basic law, isn’t it? It’s like taking the Supreme Court over the District Court. We have to consider the Supreme Court rather than the District Court as I understand it. Q. Are you familiar with the Judge West order re- specting the districting the House of Representatives for Orleans Parish? A. Yes. Q. Does it follow quote ‘‘traditional’’ unquote con- figuration? A. To some extent it does. Q. To some extent it does not? A. I think so. I couldn’t tell you specifically which ones do and which ones do not. But, as I said, it was not appealed and I con- 212 sidered that as really a final judgment of the court as such. Q. Do you think that that judgment was erroneous in the way that it divided the Parish of Orleans for those House districts? A. Well I’m not one to figure, to say one way [30] or the other. The court decided that as far as the decision, and the election was held on that basis. I think that the one that came closer to us is the one that had just about the same amount of members as they do in the Senatorial race, and we paid more attention to that one than we did to any other. At least I did. I’m speaking for myself now. Q. Did you study Judge West’s decision as it respected the Senatorial district as well as the Fifth Circuit’s de- cision? A. Yes. Q. In your judgment Fifth Circuit result was the better? A. That’s right, because it followed more closely the Supreme Court’s decision, historic boundaries, wards, precincts, things of that nature. Q. Who drew the first plan of redistricting, Councilman Di Rosa? 7 2B Ba = Ha} : : , » 3506 Seasonal = L, df i}. } ‘3 4 J Gh 3597 Audubon Park Pool / } JdSe a) D =“ - _ “7 , 3511 Program Division 4 LU 3 ¢ 2] oS 8 4 = 7 of Ra Pe , 5i2 Uptown Division oO 3 [4 44, G nia) 716.5 2 513 Downtown Division lo C / c Rae, = } ‘TS, S$ Vi ig Lekestore Division Y } 2 *), ‘} é AS 5 4,4) 7 1525 Algiers Division 4} / a | d) 4 & 4.) S )2 ?; / cv 4 ag 22] Audubon Park Pool F ake fad w? £3 ls pe ¥4) ‘ SAFETY & PSRNITS 2 10 / g 1 L7. Y g d 372, 7 291 Director's Office / Bi IO WG 3 23, } 7 692 Bd. of Bleg. Stds & Appeals / ae mw. é) O - ; : > 4. ¢) 993 Bd. of Exam. of Over. Engrs. ) ar aad 3d. of Zoning Adjust. & Appeals BEST GOPY AVAILABLE — | F6¢ Ext? fepartmental Breakdown - continued - 5 DEPARTMENT cope TOTAL White * Black % Other/> SAFETY & PERMITS - continued 2052 Building Inspection > 3 ml a b ¥3 eee 37 2053 Electrical Inspec. Section m7 4 =, L, LO LZ i 054 Mechanical Inspec. Section an a io = XK. 52 of Ve ¥ 2055 Plan Processing Section 5 a LO0 Z 2 2056 Housing Improvement 3 5 AT (AMA 1/ PET a 2057 Central Relocation EA // YOR f b. 3 4 2101 _ Matar Vehicle Inspec. £5136 |5EA27 sl 9631” Cote Setereteees 27 | Sd V6.7129 |\P3) SANTTArTON-**. See Pg. 8 ate. = ; ») Y/? VFA 48 2501 Director's Office J/3\/ 2 JO91O |O ; 703 7th Street Incinerator oS | Of if of +f : / A 704 Algiers epeiiiinn e275 |r 2 vA ha f 44 2705 Gentilly Land Fill Lf Li ee | 2 y 2706 Algiers Land Fill id YAS|D 1 Y ¥ —_ a aE ee JO 1A 172 13 13201 707 +—_Incdmerator Support FE TZ IZ 1S ze * 2708 a2. East Incinerator rd 72. ; ? a -¥ STREETS | 593 (3 LG B A | 3001 Director's Office 7 | & a 69 / \/7/ 3051 4 4 BE vi c L. / L Engr. Division - Admin. 3952-3-5-3061 Operations j104 3251 Z = poe 7 Maintenance Div. - Admin. 1A , - F3 k / | /. " g ; /10B - L Operations a / (- L fa r) oP fi. j 7 é > Traffic Engr. - Admin. Le Vig; JO? A Operations of 6 oY oO C 3 4 é Js “j ee = 000 __UPPER PONTALBO WA UTILITIES x 7 \Z 5 YZ | yA ES - a J -F / 2 2) 6501 Director's Office a aa Oe /} 92, -~} ee i al nf ae. rp | 51 Regulatory Division Zz z a so A ¢ i , mae o a A 7} C6S b-lY- Departmental Breakdown - continued - 6 Js cODS DEPARTMENT | TOTAL _WHITE % BLACK % OTRER/ WELFARE 251) 1 b/ 1237/9617 9231-2-3 Administration Offices 46 4 [l3edtin |g. 9201 Touro Shakespeare SS ‘aA Ae 4, 7 Ht PN = 0221 _ ine mone 471 (6 [ar] >: | 64 ; 9241 Youth Study Center S 2) 18 |240} 3 Ase 9551 Juvenile Offenders {0 “f dO a 40 9721 St. Bernard Area Guidance ol DLA ws | /90 - 6751 West Bank Outreach Center aL O10 s- | 74d 7 9761 Lead Poisoning Unit / 0 f Oo} F |%o S UNATTACHED BOARDS & COMMISSIONS PARKWAYS & PARKS , ?O3A Administration / / / S46 a. | aed ‘ PO3C Green Houses _ “ 1S / bo 7 = PO3D Nurseries / “i / | ‘3 234 5 dy : —_ PO3D Nurseries 7-418 sa POIE Building & Util. Maint. Z, 3 1/54] 2 i? POF Tree Trim & Removal 631 39 164] Jf Ps! PO3G Grass Cutting [O49] Q7z}224 yy Ly PO3H Flower & Shrubbery G4| 42) 27) 27 1297 PO3I Algiers G ¥ 199 can P _ PO3K __Park Devel. & Const. & = 2c] = cé ?O3L Pontchartrain Park 4 0 4, ‘= 110D f PO3M Brechtel Park lo ¥. \7O ’ ID | f/ - 7051 __ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION UY 2129 \eb, T\ SF \33 Si 7 9451 __ FRENCH MARKET CORPORATION 2 + g 5231/6 hb7 7101 __VIEUX CARPE COMMISSION 4 5 \|§3 3 / 14.7 TOTAL EMPLOYEES &, 159 WHITE f 0 ‘] 5 BLACK 3 | aL OTHER Rm) % % % Totals as of 8/1/72: Total F4LG White 57 EY (608%) Black x Té272 (34.2%) other (4 o.tb%) 96¢ BEST COPY AVAILABLE DEPARTMENTAL BREAKDOWN OF CITY ExpLovess - 9 -/~72% “SDE DEPARTMENT TOTAL WHITE % BLACK % 5 ALCOuoT. ChETTY AcTrON PReoR Ls g rim 533 t1q_ lagi 7r_Asae 43 | 4 150.0 14 _| 500 9671 ASAP - Traffic Probation /O 7 7T6.0' 3 30,0 | -Xo11___ AVIATION 53 3 ( Ds Fucchasing A L 24 G43. 2 7.7 Wy a) Sa Accounting : b4 wn 50 TS 4 Lats. 9 — ‘571 - Public Service Careers listed on Pg. 6; figures included in Civil Service totall™ “968. —- Certified Area listed on Pg. 6; figures included in CDA total. + p L6S BEST COPY AVAILABLE = , Yspactmental Breakdown - continued - page 2 BEST GOPY AVAILABLE gfi [72 CODE DEPARTMENT TOTAL WHITE % BLACK &% cn Finance - continued —_ “651 Treseury Aduinietretien Z...... 4 | 40 iolo | 7552 Tax Collection & Audit Ab 33 i/o 2G. 3 +633 Receipts & Disbursement L 5 ¥35.3) / 46.7 4654 Parking Meter Collection Z 3 | 375! 5 |6a5 481 Bureau of Revenue | OT TF SAY L--A751 Employee Retirement = b 5 $3.3 / le-7 a IF 5 /2.8| BY 1IT2| 9091 Central Duplicating L 2) J3.3| / [46.7 REDP EDP T7 36 AN Al |a73| — ozo | 974 97 34 lok | +501 Administration g 8 BZA / \us/ : 4551 Firefighting VIAP GAL |975| JQ12.3 Ue 1553 Fire Training 4 4 60} Jj 120.0 “4601 Fire Dispatching o / | 9 FO5| 2 |9-5_ 1651 Fire Prevention | xG 10-3 GENERAL SERVICES sm | os Lt A ~ - Ot ap o_"_4_}i0u_4_{iagl HEALTH F944! 206 Fi i d86 159.1 |2/ 4801 Director's Office ZO | 4/ HL b 0 4351 Administration 7 | 4 57/1} 3 WR.9 AL Vital Records AT | ay 6.9 3 //./ 4371 Communicable Disease Control f° | § ges / hi Be RT TTT / : / 100, _O | | 381 ___ public Health Nursing, Maternal /3/ | 54 4.2 76 158.0 1/0 ay oe seater Child Care ei, aa | | 96.0 YU Venereal Disease Control Lio [+f | $25: L ot | /2 S| ~£21 Public Health Sanitation | IT 33 599. AY : 42 AL yt a, Vector Control 42. 7 58.3 ~) | 4/. si Ah) Rodent Control 33 / | 2.0 ! _ 32 | 92. Oi. Fast Home Health Services a ob 22 7 27 8 Wait! Environmental Health Service 36H / 3.3: 29 | | Go7 | ee nah Fb compra 37 >, oe BI _4 | Mg. 2 a ee ee / / 1700, © } © 7 86¢ " (eoactmental Breakdown - continued - page 3 —_—=-_—- CODE DEPARTMENT TOTAL WHITE % BLACK &% o. Health - continued +583 Air Surveillaace " 3/ 5 1, 26 (339 A472 Parish Prison Medical Clinic IT 4f _93.5| 43 [765 : » TROL Drug Abuse Treatment Program L0 /3 Al. T\ 46 6.7 , c | proc proara O- . 7 : : - — O -£ 7 LIBRARY A/ > Ws fof) = as a —T50A Administration /G lq S75, Ad |/A5 \-TS50B-M Maintenance & Operation J20 $5 170.9) 35 129./ /150P-2 Branch Libraries AG 33 JWI 13 [ZK2 T3501 Bookmobiles Z 3 50.0| 7 |400 rT351 Restricted Funds AY 3 33,3} /& | 66.7 MAYOR 4- 33 Cesl ty [743 0251 Mayor's Office, pom titern'l Rels. ag Al |724 3 |476| | 0252 Human Relations Committee /6 G [3745/0 |6245| 0262 Consumer Affairs 7 4 [57-4 5 142.9 “22 2 |f0o0| 0 | O “BAM veban peveloonent & Planning ok 2 {1/00 | 0 . TcO1l__ MOSQUITO _ CONTROL _£ 24 i . f - POLICE. _ , $33 [/583 [S/o 27 / , — ee. 4o | 36 |%\|4 3 i 4 Police Surgeon 4 4 00.| O | — Budget Control '7Z q 93.3) 0 10Steb-—operations é : 140_| J09_ \Za4\ 7/ Si Police Acadeny 57 4G o| § Gar General Services // /O0 G0g\_/ {32> Motor Maintenance $7_| 33 |579) 24 LOSH-M__ Operations /Z2_ | /O4 T5427 BAtid Central Lockup SL} bl 09 4k SESS community Relations Division A _ 22) G Ba/) q. had Data Processing | 'Z, |Z 100 3 O I o (2S _ tactical unit XX 4g 47 1o¢. ; / {3° Planning Division > Ee fo o OO" RECREATION zy | 299 lay d vy | Slay. ‘Administrative Office /7 g }52 vA g 47.1 ee 59_| 23 (39.0: 26_| ero ps 5 — eee 1 igh fooft— __|RO/ | 4 47.9 105. 192 ad 7331 Program Division 675 | §7 V7.2: 585 i $6.7 Hfo.1_ Departmental Breakdown - continued - page 5 CODE DEPARTMENT TOTAL _‘-WHITE % BLACK Ziti Recreation - continued 12 Uptown Division . /0G AY _ +Aa.6 $2 | 974) 3513 Downtown Division L065 AY 7! 76 ay \!/ ft 3514 Lakeshore Division 75 | AY 32,0, F/ 169.0 73315 Algiers Division 356 AY LIN 32 |67,/ | F421 Audubon Park Pool @ ” S/ 1h 23.51 37 1765 : SAFETY & PERMITS 344 |) 193. \52/) [50 | 734 UF 2001 Director's Office /6 IY \875! 2 1/246. 2002 Board of Building Stds & Appeals / / joo | © fa 2003 Bd. of Exam. of Oper. Engineers e) 4 G04 / |20.0 7004 Bd. of Zoning Adjust. & Appeals / / 100} 0. dD —2052 Building Inspection 36 Bi \gel| 5 |3Ag| - 3053 Electrical Inspection — 27 27 \00 | oO O 056 Mechanical Inspection Section AE 2/ |\7%.0| 7 |h50} \2055 Plan Processing Section a = /00\| 0 a, ee Se ee ee ee ee Seery y ee | 2055 Plan Processing Section 7 7 /00} O 0 3056 Housing Inprovenent : | A / 3/ |B el /0 |244 “ne! Motor Vehicle Inspection | Wg 3 \55./\ gy |Y3.2 fh. : _ 952 TRONS - 57 Q 16 |57 wo 19631 Code Enforcement As a | 78) 23 | 397 TET LELOCI CLO 19 g 44 y, // 4TG\| _— — — russe To0 |#3a {(54959| 3249 [¥3/| 2501 Director's Office /@ ( Joo} O 6 an ‘a onpcaiiag WY | Hi \5b.0\ 322 |e — — S§S7_ 1 37 14 bi 200 540 5001 Director's Office /O 7 9.0| 5 | 0.0) _ 51 Engr. Division - Admin. G D4 ge A / hs | ELE Operations EY z7 fad 7 ig.2 png ~ i> | | : | i) ee oe yee oe re | Yod | a20 Sd LEY oe $251 _ Traffic Engineering - Administration /9 | Lf £6. % 0 - see _ a - Asphalt Plant Sect] te 3 4A. nae : g m _ Srna UPPER PONTALBO . | -/ | 3 [7s.0: _/ PET “{ncludes Sanitation codes 2601, 2651-56, 2701-08, 2751-56, and 25801 Sanat! on (cont ) ~QVASH -_ OLearers Svrect Clernnp 2110 7 Incinerator Sup! g 1163 - Flushing v2IO&~ Glaers Land b= re2Ios - Gentliy Lanna - “1592 - Peapod aiar Cleannsyp w2tTO 4 - Alaiers Drei n. gos ~ i ~ ~ “a /° —_— y non- uniformed (i.e., non-commissioned) service. Black empioy- ment in the uniformed service has only increased about 1.3% in the last five years. In May, 1967, black employment in the uniformed service was about 3.1% (45 out of 1,174 employees); as of December, 1971, it was 4.4% (81 out of 1,384 employees). B. Recruitment (1) At present the recruitment (or communication) techniques of both the civil service and police departments are limited to the following: (a) Civil Service—The department publishes an examination announcement which is placed on a bulle- tin board on the Ist floor of City Hall and which is mailed to every department of city government, to anyone upon request, and to about 150 organizations and individuals in the community who have contact with the public and with job-seekers. The department also advertises the announcement in both the Times- 606 Picayune and the Louisiana Weekly in the classified sections and sometimes in articles in the body of the paper. The department does not do any motivational advertising such as display ads, TV spots, etc. (b) Police Department—The police department cur- rently has only one recruiter, attached to the Commu- nity Relations Division. His efforts are limited to the visitation of high schools on Career Days and the recruitment of high school students for the cadet pro- gram. On Career Days the recruiter generally gives a short talk on the benefits of police service and dis- tributes some motivational literature, written and published in large part by the FBI (which does not enjoy a favorable image in the black community). Aside from these efforts the department does little else in terms of recruitment. It has been demonstrated that minimal efforts at recruitment directed to the predominantly black community via radio only result in a significant increase in the number of black applicants. (2) Although the recruitment techniques of both the police and civil service departments could be improved, these techniques do not appear to be a major factor in the slow rate of increase of black employment in the uniformed service. From the standpoint of the number of black appli- cations for employment at the patrolman level, these tech- niques appear to be adequate enough. The number of black applicants for the position of patrolman has increased steadily and significantly since Sept., 1969. At that time, the number of black applications represented approxi- mately 28% of the total applications for the position. Since that time four announcements for the position have been made. In response to each of these announcements the number of black applications increase. At the time of the announcement in November, 1971, black applications rep- resented 45% of the total. The most recent exam announce- ment, released in June, 1972, resulted in black applications representing 60% of the total submitted. MEMORANDUM Wuuiam R. Konrap, Director or Personne. To: Joun D. Jackman, Cuter, Cuassirication Drviston From: Supsect: Tue Sequence or Brack/Wuire Empioyment Ratio ry THE CLassiFiep Service Since May 15, 1967 Annual (Calendar Yr.) Annual (Calendar Yr.) % Inerease Black Employees In Work Force % of Blacks No. of Blacks Total Work Foree In Work Force Increase s/o cr Total Classified Work Foree Date of Tabulation 5/15/67 16.0% 16.2% 16.5% 17.7% 20.0 To 1,215 1,271 oO ™~ 6.5 12/31/67 3/31/68 1,305 1,404 17 7,934 12/31/68 6/30/69 18 8,219 3.08 % 1,601 19.4% 14.03% 12/31/69 6/30/70 12/31/7 6/30/71 030 2 949 * 21.30% 14.49% 24.92% 1,833 4.71% 8,606 9,116 26.10% 29.41% 37. 2,372 - 9,088 11,067* 12/31/71 2% 4,115 31% 32.5% 3,107 4,258 9,564 10,926 1/30/73 39.0% 12/73 * Exeludes approximately 500 Youth Opportunity Program summer employees. NOT : Systematically higher annual summer tabulation figures embrace the seasonal recreational and student al 4 employment. CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT of Blacks In Work Force 18.4% a sO mployment Total Black ” k 4 47 mplovees » Kk 4 Black Female _ 4 RVICE: 90 KE: 4 j ~ D SERVIC Employees Black Male _ 4 _ 4 Total CLASSIFIFE Work Force SUBJECT: Additional Data on Black/White Employment in City of New Orleans, Louisiana T UNCLASSIFIED SKI 608 609 ~~ Excerpts from Verbatim Transcript of Special Council Meeting “5 on Redistricting cS -) Bx) S Held on February 15, 1972 at 7:00 P.M. te % CouNcILMAN JosepH W. D1 Rosa: Ladies and gentlemen, S we are meeting here tonight for a formal hearing. This is not one where we have an invocation and all the rest of the formalities that come up. This is just an open public hear- ing on redistricting, as such. We want you to know that “= this is an open hearing only. There will be no voting on = & L anything at this time, and it has been the rule of the —_ 2) Council that we ask that you restrict your speech, if you Sa] + : ’ SE can, to three minutes, but we allow you five. If it’s possible “o to restrict it to three, we ask that you do so, but we allow five minutes to each speaker. If you have any written statements, we ask that you submit the written statements to us and we’ll have them reproduced and give them back 2, to you—give any portion of it back. If you have a statement E S|. that will take longer than that to read, we ask that you mS summarize your statement and give us a copy of the $e al written statement. a) - Mr. Arvin Sarcent: Gentlemen of the Council. I am representing the Black Political Coalition of New Orleans. I am also Vice Chairman of the SCLC of the local chapter here in New Orleans. I think it was January 20 when our © » President, Reverend Avery Alexander, did present to this c S is body a plan for SCLC. From this plan represented ideas “= Pal of a coalition of black leaders from around the City. At SE - that meeting, the first meeting, seocnd meetings that we ™ had, it was agreed upon that we would then approach the City Council for the Council to act on a ten-member dis- trict and also one member to run at large on a City-wide basis, which would mean that this one member that would S be elected, from the City-wide basis, would then, through ae pe revision of the City Home Rule Charter, become the Vice 2 «| S Mayor of New Orleans and also the President of the City Che Council. This is the plan that we are endorsing. The Black “ Political Coalition of New Orleans and also the SCLC. 610 We are asking and we are submitting to you without all this various technical data that most of you have at hand, we are saying that this is the best plan that we think would be beneficial to New Orleans and its people, because, in our minds and on our plans as what we have come up with, we feel that it would then be truly representative of all the people on the City Council taking in all the ethnic groups of the City. So therefore, we are urging the Council if they would like very much to get with us, we would like to get with you and show you just exactly what we are talking about. We are asking for true representation on the City Council for a ten-member district and one Coun- cilman at Large would then represent the Vice Mayor. This would have to be done, of course, through revision of the Home Rule Charter. Mrs. OretHa Hatey: Okay. My name is Oretha Haley, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Redistricting Plan. I do have copies of the plan I’d like to pass out to you gentlemen at this point. Gentiemen, we are speaking to you on behalf of several political and civic groups. For the record, the group are the Urban League, Southern Organization for Unified Leadership (SOUL), American Federation of T>achers, Community Organization for Urban Politics, Orleans Edu- cators Association, the Orleans Parish Progressive Voters League, Black Youth for Progress, Black Organization for Leadership Dtvelodpment (BOLD), the Treme Im- provement Association, Community Conscience Blacks, Broadmoor Imprevement Association, Representatives Dorothy Taylor, Louis Charbonnet, Theodore Marchand, George Connor, and Johnny Jackson. We submit to you that the City Council as presently structured, five district Councilmen and two at large is inadequate, for the structure does not lend itself to repre- sentation of all people. Thus, a redistricting plan on the . present basis is unfair. According to the Municipal Year Book, an authoritative resume of activities and statistical data on American cit- 611 ies, New Orleans has the smallest Council for cities with population upward of 500,000. There is one exception. Columbus, Ohio, has seven Councilmen. However, all seven are elected at large. A survey of cities of 500,000 indicates that the size of City Councils range from nine to fifteen, with the median being twelve. For example, Bufialo-15, Memphis-13, and San Francisco-11, just to mention a few. When one looks at national trends, the needs of New Orleans, and acceptable criteria for redistricting, it is con- cluded that an eleven district council would best serve the population of New Orleans. This would mean that Ward Fifteen, Algiers, would be a district by itself. We are sub- mitting this eleven district plan to you after a thorough evaluation of several five districts, two at large plans, as well as several seven districts plans. Hence, the Coalition for a Fair Redistricting Plan is speaking against the passage of Ordinance Calendar Num- ber 5193, calling an election for approval or rejection by electors of an amendment to the Home Rule Charter to inerease the number of District Councilmen from five to seven. Further, we are opposed to Ordinance Calendar Number 5194, redistricting the City of New Orleans. This eleven-man plan provides for population equality, acknowledgment of the only real, natural boundary New Orleans has, the River, contiguous and compact districts, Also it calls for proportionate representation of all socio- economic segments of the community. The eleven district plan provides for an ideal popula- tion per district of 53,931, with a high population devia- tion of +3.2 per cent, well below the five per cent devia- tion that has been generally accepted by the Courts. Just a final note on cost, I’d like to mention. It would appear on the surface that an eleven district council would be too costly for the City. The fact of the matter is, that we would reduce the cost to the people. While total dollars would increase, the benefits per dollar increase would be significantly higher than the dollar outlay. Citizens would get quality representation with eleven districts that would more than justify the added cost. 612 Gentlemen, we are fully cognizant of the Charter man- date that the Council must redistrict itself by April. We further understand that in order to meet that mandate, the Council will have to redistrict according to its present five-two structure. However, this is the public hearing concerning redistricting. We feel it is our responsibility to say to you at this time, that that mandate will be inade- quate. Finally, let me comment on the question that some of you may have regarding gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is defined as to divide an area into political units to give special advantages to one group. The present five-two councilmanic structure is so gerry- mandered as to give disproportionate representation to white, middle to upper income groups in the Community. Thus, we urge you to adopt an ordinance that would enlarge the Council to eleven districts, which would give a fair opportunity/advantage to all segments of the pop- ulation. You have before you a copy of the plan that we are introducing for your consideration at this time with the population deviations .. . CouncrLMAN JosepH V. D1 Rosa: I didn’t want to dis- turb you while you were reading because we had a copy of you text here, but I was going to tell you that you had two minutes. I’ll give you a minute to wind up. Mrs. OretHa Hatey: I have finished at this point, except for answering any questions, if you may have any. Mr. Nits R. Dovetas: Sure will. My name is Nils R. Douglas. I’m the Chairman of the Southern Organization for Unified Leadership. As I attempted to record for my own benefit some of the thoughts that I would attempt to suggest and share with you today, it became obvious to me that to appear at a public hearing as a black person repre- senting a portion of the black community, that it was a kind of ridiculous notion, that it’s ridiculous from the standpoint that al] black people share the same goals with reference to the question that’s before us and all white 613 people, particularly members of the City Council of any City or any political. group, ought to know, if they don’t know, what aspirations of the black people in the United States are. If, perchance, there is anyone present who doesn’t know why we are here, we are here to change the color of the members who are presently sitting as Council- men and Councilmen at Large. It may be paradoxical for me to stand here and to sug- gest to you that you are to vote for something that may result in your not being here the next time a vote is taken. But, I’m sure that for all of us who are aware of what the Constitutional] process in America is all about, we would choose to do it by ballot, rather than do it by bullet. And this is not a threat. This is merely dealing with the subject from what I consider to be a realistic point of view. One of the genuises of the American Constitutional system, and indeed the legislative system of America, is the fact that it’s a flexible document, it’s a flexible institution. It can expand and it can contract. T’'m saying to you that the present posture of the Con- stitution of the City Council of the City of New Orleans is not adequate to deal with the needs. It’s totally inadequate and unsatisfying to dea] with the wants of the black people of the community of the City of New Orleans. I’m saying io you that there must be a drastic change in the Consti- tution, the racial constitution, of the Council of the City of New Orleans. This is a public hearing and a public hearing is the time for words. However, there will be a time when words will no longer be appropriate and we will have to use other methods, abbeit methods within the framework of the governmental institutions of the City and the State, whereby we can make known through other means our dissatisfaction. Let me close by saying that the people that I claim to represent wholeheartedly endorse the eleven-man plan, the plan which I call the Haley-Rochon plan, for the redistrict- ing of the Council of the City of New Orleans. Any ques- tions you have, refer to Mrs. Haley and Mr. Rochon, the authors of the plan. Thank you. 614 Mr. Revius Ortique: I’m Revius Ortique. I represent the Citizens Participation Committee of the Urban League, and I fashioned my representation along those lines, be- cause... Councitman Joseru V. D1 Rosa: Excuse me just a min- ute. Did you give your name and affiliation into the micro- phone? I don’t believe you did, did you? Mr. Revius Ortique: The Urban League of New Orleans, of course, cannot lobby any particular bill. However, the Urban League is very interested in the citizens becoming fully aware of their responsibility to their City govern- ment and the City government’s responsibility to them. I’m sure each of the Councilmen recognize that the City of New Orleans is rapidly becoming a City with a strong black potential. I’m sure each of the Councilmen recognize that this Council, as well as all governments in this coun- try, favor people working within the system to bring about systematic change. The change has to be reflective of the people who constitute that governmental body. I need not remind you that the latest official census reports indicate that 46.3% of the population of the City of New Orleans is black. It is not surprising, therefore, that black people have aspirations to sit on the City Council and sit in a meaningful manner. It is the position of the Com- munity Participation Committee that certain criteria ought to be developed in order to determine what type of Coun- cil the City of New Orleans should have. This criteria reflects itself in a conviction that the City of New Orleans needs and must have an increase in the number of Coun- cilmen. As Mrs. Haley has indicated, New Orleans is out of step with other cities of similar size. Most cities of our size have Councilmen in much larger numbers. Secondly, it is imperative that the City of New Orleans have a Council that truly represents the people. It we are 46.3% of the population, then we feel that we ought to have something in terms of numbers of Councilmen who would properly reflect that type of representation. 615 We would, therefore, urge the Council to consider seri- ously the eleven-man council that has been proposed here tonight. We think that this type of council will truly repre- sent the people, will give proper representation to districts, like the Algiers district, and at the same time, will let the people of the City of New Orleans know that this Council, this Council is willing to support a plan that will truly represent them. Let me say in my last two minutes, Mr. President, that I think, personally, that this Council will want to do its work. It seems to me that it is not an appropriate tack to insist that courts do the work for us. It’s not an appro- priate tack that we commit people to resort to systems changes outside of what we think of as orderly constitu- tional government. It will be my hope that you gentlemen, with insight and foresight for the City.of New Orleans, would recognize that it is inevitable that the constitutney of the City of New Orleans will demand that they have a larger Council and a more representative Council, and that this Council will want to do its work within the sys- tem and not have someone else tell you that you did an improper thing that you must now comply with an edict from some other body. It’s your place as a citizen. As a representative of the Urban League Citizens Par- ticipation Committe, I urge you to do that which is best for New Orleans and we say that which is best is the eleven-man council, affording greater opportunity for all of the people of the City of New Orleans. Thank you. Mrs. Dororny Taytor: Mrs. Dorothy Taylor, State Rep- resentative, District 93. Like Mr. Smith, who mentioned the problem he had, I’d like to say that every black person in the City of New Orleans has a problem. And that problem is lack of representation—lack of representation right here in our City Council Chambers, where we con- stitute 46.3 of the total population, but yet, not one black on our City Council. I wholeheartedly support the plan submitted by the Coalition for a Fair Redistricting, and I urge you, as the elected Councilmen, who are supposed 616 to be representing black folks throughout the City of New Orleans, to give it a second thought, and to review this plan very carefully. And we will be watching you as to how you cast your vote for this particular eleven-member plan. Mr. Rosert Cottins: My name is Robert Collins. I’m the President of the Community Organization for Urban Politics. I speak on behalf of the eleven-member plan as proposed by the Coalition for a Fair Redistricting. We fee] that certainly New Orleans is out of step with the times in terms of the type of representation we have on the City Council. Even—not even going out of the State of Louisiana—even with reference to other cities—other towns and cities in our State have done, we’re out of step with the times. Crowley, Louisiana has black representa- tives on its City Council; Baton Rouge, Louisiana has black representatives on its City Council. But, yet, we with 46 per cent plus blacks still do not Lave a black per- son sitting to make laws for our City. Now, it’s been said, and I think it’s becoming more and more of a truism in terms of polities for blacks. We view the political struc- ture from the new and evolving viewpoint. We have no permanent enemies. We have no permanent friends. We have only permanent interests. And we are permanently concerned about fair and equal representation in terms of government and we intend to settle for nothing less. Now, the failure of this Council to fairly redistrict, and as far as I’m concerned, fair redistricting requires not less than an eleven-member plan, particularly in view of what Algiers wants, what blacks want, what Uptown wants, and Downtown, et cetera. I think you—there’s been a lot of studies made, and I think that only if eleven—only an eleven-member plan can satisfy all of competing interests, not only blacks, and not only whites, but also of all the various socio-economic, ethnic, et cetera, groups that have to be satisfied in this community. I think that when you take all this into consideration, a fair and equitable plan is an eleven-member plan. And I’d like to urge and beg 617 this Council to seriously consider this plan, because there’s a final note that’s been touched upon before—as a lawyer, I always like to think about this—failure of this Council to fairly redistrict will obviously and inevitably result in legal action being taken. There’s no question about that in my mind. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Lovis Cuarsonnet: I’m Representative-elect Louis Charbonnet from District 96. I’m speaking on behalf of the people that I represent in District 96 and the black community. I say Representative-elect because this is the’ proper title, but I’d like to say at this time, just to refresh Councilman Ciaccio’s memory in some cases, the only reason why I’m standing up here as a Representative- elect is because of reapportionment that allowed black people to be properly represented, and this is what we are asking the Council to do here when they deliberate on councilmanie reapportionment. We are asking you to give black pegple of this community and minority groups, a chance to represent themselves and to govern themselves. Now, you said some things about a certain district about, you know, how much money—50 this and 50 that— I say in District C that we have never been represented, the same as we’ve never been represented in District 96, as far as the City Council goes. And we want a new repre- sentative and we want a representative that will represent the entire people, all of the people of any district that the Council sets up. I’m here to say that I’m favor of the eleven-man district submitted by the Coalition. My understanding is that cer- tain areas of the city will be grouped together in the lo- cales that best fit them. We feel that Algiers will be a unit and we also fee] that the lines run, I think Mrs. Haley will explain them, that they do not cross any precinci lines and they do follow some of the general lines of the redistricting of the legislature. I urge the Council to consider these plans. Look at them very carefully and you will find that they stay within the guidelines set up by the federal Government. And we 618 ask the Council not to go into the turmoil that the State went into to be forced to redistrict itself. Do your job. Redistrict the Council that it will represent all of the eleven-man plan and you'll be considering the plan that’s voted on by the people. Thank you. Mr. Bos Mc Farianp: Thank you, Councilman DiRosa. My name is Bob McFarland. I’m a*member of the Black Louisiana Action Committee, District two which is the second congressional district and I’m here to represent my views... CouncirLMAN JosepH V. Dr Rosa: Just give your address, Bob. Will you please. Your address. Mr. Bos McFartanp: My address is 7930 Cohn Street. I’m here to represent my views on the whole issue of reapportionment. Number one, this City is somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty percent black. I think that it’s ridiculous for you gentlemen on the Council or any of us who are really supposed to be true about having real rep- resentation in government to talk about maintaining a Council that is still all white. I know that Councilman Moreau said that one of his objections to increasing the Council so that it would have black majority districts is that he didn’t want to polarize the Council, but I submit to you that the Council is already polarized because there is seven gentlemen up there and all of you are white and this city is almost fifty percent black. So the Council is already polarized. Number two, we got a seven-member Council right now, five districts which in the present situation, there’s no possibility of a black person being elected. I think that’s ridiculous. I think thai any councilman, present council- man, who is really about the business of really having representative government should also agree that that is ridiculous. I know that I’ve heard some plans about including the Jefferson Council and including the St. Bernard Council and all kinds of other Councils. Everything but including 619 black people, you know, into power. My position here is, I’m in support of the eleven-member Council as repre- sented by the SCLC. I think that early in the game the SCLC came together, invited members of the black com- munity and everybody who was interested in participating, to come up with a plan that would be acceptable to the masses of black people in this City. I think that they have a plan, a plan that represents that situation and (copy here is illegible) | gentlemen on the Council would give strong consideration to that plans, because it represents a means by which black people can really be represented in this government, if this is really what we are about the business of. Thank you. wWulu SM ALLOA SAVITHO MAN . Zz. % oe 3 eeey' eee . * 6) . oerece e. “e Composite Illustration of Defendant's Exhibits 1 9 uw =\ : \ - -_ ) Ve la\, 4 j~\ ic —~ i * fo \-- s* * ~) : © i «J ; . - ~ + . ’ pies Ere eal --rakn ie pad BAN, ™yY = ii st — bit) -s “4a ” i. w : ee . a - } “ . 5 f: if - +h Zz . w | > - - a a. a w 2) (oe &@ + > +. LS 7 . *3e5s © ,2s5 2 , ses > q*-%3+0 eve z , ee Sl ee an a | ~«e« 8a D . i -@| | sere q . : ’ DEPARTMENT OF STREETS FF pc, i Oe. | De dts Evh. 1961 REDISTRICTING PLAN* Popul atione-------- en enn nnn eee enn nnn nn- District Total Deviation Black “Black f 134,613 +13.47 42,521 31.6 B 108 , 769 -8.47 67,600 62.2 aC 100,811 -15.1% 40,544 40.2 D 114,367 -3, 67, 50,029 43.7 E 134,911 +13.77 66,604 49.4 Total 593,471 267,293 45.0 Registered voterS-----Black A 61,048 13,630 22.7 B 39,266 19,723 50.2 C 41,844 10,304 24.6 D 48,546 17,615 36.3 & E 51,694 22,111 42.8 Total 242,398 83,583 34.5 *Statistics caiculated by the City of New Orleans, letter of May 9, 1973. —OEFrP_ ANAT ORY DEPARTMENT OF STREETS 5 PRECINCT wuUMeEF @ wero suwere —— PREC HCT SOuNDAFY t= i Dfar. 5s Evh. 3 d a i —eewe owe Woy “ 4 * “ oo iL " . 7 a . /( eS = —— ae J 6 LP: me a tax: —t PAH A ORY 5 PECK? omens @ «ene seweee — PREC’ GOumOer a we i ee DEPARTMENT OF STREETS .-“ «aS. «= PROPOSED JANUARY 13, 1972 */ MOREAU'S ORTGINAL REDISTRICTING PLAN Population------- ' e a“ sf - . s is.- vis ri ———. J s. ‘ 418, *s- . . ~ . PRO KY DNF NE viz 3 Heli} * ) ws .* * ? - 4. |’ a \ é / 4 A \ re 4 6 ; , \ xX SS or ~ } 6 . er. ~? » Ay ‘f on } — =_ — “2 ; - / v4 + ; ‘ . fa, = - } y ? a > * on ~ = — 3 5 5 > 1? ~ 4 " . - ; Ss 2 : ee A f rti i SS > 4 is] (LA s"2 j ryt sj zB . i : anal TX et y Posed 5 iL ryt [ ‘ = = e “ff A . > 12) . ® t2- ? , ais “ ; | *% “| ’ , ~ if ‘4 ti ve ie 1 min 7 j f . ~ ; } ; 2 / ~ {, = ir ! * —_ >, Oe ih Ps : tS 4 ~ fon if " “~ «Xe Fic me 4 ~ J’ ti 14- Ay. 4 j Es 16 Re Pa - - wee a... 7 = > V3 ‘ ’ —_—:- 1@-A |, “ i: . . ee, of MAP OF WN +, ie > - NEW ORLEANS a De [* -* — , i ionoass an * ] — = \ Seen eFEC eC’ sumer DEPARTMENT OF STREETS - ae i ” > wero suwece . yee ere ag , —— PREC BC’ BOunDer’ ———_——ee——— ¢ N EFC BOUNOeRY —_, —_ _ C 0 E G G - a Ge ae 2 ee ae iS ° a at * - , — Ww ° Pia . - — 7. + o*, aes wat , i . , Pa a a : a “4 ! —~ % IFANGT DEPARTMENT OF STREETS Black A 57,387 12,964 22.6 B 39,870 20,976 52.6 C 48,204 19,210 39.9 D 50,667 9,171 18.1 m E 46,270 21,267 46.0 s Total 242,398 83,588 34.5 * Statistics calculated by the City of New Orleans, letter of Mey 31, 1973, from Councilman Sapir. SL) SP Shy SS ee ee OCEPARTMENT OF STREETS a“ oa «a. «@ OEPARTMENT OF STREETS = afte @o on aioe L— a i \ anc aOunpany — anaens id — Pp , iS PARISH } REDISTRICTING PLAN PROPOSED BY ORLEANS I'S REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ACTION COUNCIL */ 7 Popul atlonen--<---cce eres nee ecene ce eseerrn= District Total _ Deviation Black 7Black A 119,531 +0. 7% 42,397 35.5 B 117,638 -0.9% 88,504 75.2 c 117,894 -0.7% 26,865 22.8 D 117,016 -1.4% 72,207 66.8 E 121, 330 +2. 2% 31,379 25.9 Total 593,409 267, 352 45.0 Registered votersS-<-<<<-<<<-eceen nn een-eee District Total Black 7.Black A 53,401 13,880 26.0 a 39,024 24,734 60.8 C 53,392 7,307 13.7 D 38,467 24,373 63.4 E 58,109 13,189 22.7 Total 242,393 83,483 34.4 - * Population statistics calculated by the Department of Justice from precinct population figures supplied by the New Orleans Bureau of Governmental Research, Registration Statistics supplied by the Republican Political Action Council. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0215%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.