Bussie v. Governor of Louisiana

• Citation: 333 F. Supp. 452
• Decision Date: 10 September 1971
• Docket Number: 71-259.,71-235,Civ. A. No. 71-202,71-206,71-234
• Parties: Victor BUSSIE et al. v. The GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al. Emmitt J. DOUGLAS et al. v. John J. McKEITHEN, Individually and as Governor of Louisiana, et al. Dorothy TAYLOR et al. v. John J. McKEITHEN, Governor of Louisiana, et al. Carroll G. MILLER et al. v. GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al. Victor BUSSIE et al. v. The GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

333 F. Supp. 452

Victor BUSSIE et al. v. The GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al.

Emmitt J. DOUGLAS et al. v. John J. McKEITHEN, Individually and as Governor of Louisiana, et al.

Dorothy TAYLOR et al. v. John J. McKEITHEN, Governor of Louisiana, et al.

Carroll G. MILLER et al. v. GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al.

Victor BUSSIE et al. v. The GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA et al.

Civ. A. Nos. 71-202, 71-206, 71-234, 71-235, 71-259.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division.

September 10, 1971.

Murphy W. Bell T/A, Robert C. Williams, Robert Judge Eames, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiffs Douglas and others.

Robert F. Collins, TA, Collins & Douglas, Stanley A. Halpin, Jr., Elie, Bronstein & Strickler, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs Taylor and others.

Adams & Reese, Sam A. Le Blanc, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs Miller and others.

Sam A. Le Blanc, III, New Orleans, La., Camille F. Gravel, Jr., Gravel, Roy & Burnes, Alexandria, La., for plaintiffs Bussie and others.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Kenneth C. DeJean, Thomas W. McFerrin, Baton Rouge, La., for all defendants except Republican Committee.

Martin L. C. Feldman, Nat G. Kiefer, Michael O'Keefe, Adrian Duplantier, New Orleans, La., for defendant, Republican State Central Committee.

E. GORDON WEST, Chief Judge.

BACKGROUND

In 1966 a suit was filed in this Court involving "the right of Louisiana citizens not to be shortchanged in their vote for members of the state legislature." See Bannister v. Davis, 263 F.Supp. 202 (1966). As a result of that suit, which was heard by a statutory three judge court, a special session of the Louisiana Legislature was convened and Acts 3 and 4 of the Extra Ordinary Session of 1966 were enacted. Act 3 reapportioned the Louisiana Senate and Act 4 reapportioned the Louisiana House of Representatives. Immediately thereafter the Court entered an order approving the plans for reapportionment contained in Acts 3 and 4 of 1966. The plans for both the House and the Senate contained a mixture of multi-member and single member districts. The Louisiana Legislature has been apportioned according to those Acts up to the present time. Following the 1970 United States census, the Louisiana Legislature, in accordance with the mandate of the Louisiana Constitution, undertook to reapportion itself in accordance with the 1970 census. A Legislative Committee on Re-Apportionment was appointed and worked diligently in an effort to produce a plan which would be in accordance with the 1970 census while at the time complying with the one man, one vote requirement and the other equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. All efforts of the Committee to have a special session called to consider its plans were to no avail and it was not until the Regular 1971 Session of the Legislature that the question of reapportionment was considered. There was much opposition to the Committee's plans, emanating largely from the Orleans and Jefferson Parish legislators, and it was only after many amendments had been made to the Committee's proposed plan that Acts 106 and 108 of the 1971 Regular Session emerged. The resulting plans were so obviously constitutionally defective that these present consolidated suits were instituted seeking to have Acts 3 and 4 of the Extra Session of 1966 and Acts 106 and 108 of the Regular Session of 1971 declared unconstitutional, null and void, and seeking further to have this Court "fashion a plan" of reapportionment that would be protective of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens of Louisiana. Since the proposed changes in apportionment contained in Acts 106 and 108 were creatures of the Legislature and not the Court, this Court stayed all proceedings pending submission of the plan to the Attorney General of the United States as required by Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c, for a determination as to whether or not the plan was racially discriminatory. This was done, and the Attorney General concluded that the plan was, in many respects, racially discriminatory. This Court whole-heartedly concurred with the findings of the Attorney General. The rejection of the plan by the United States Attorney General automatically rendered Acts 106 and 108 null and void. See Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c. Even if the Attorney General had not found racial discrimination, this Court would have found those Acts unconstitutional for failure to comply with the constitutional requirement of one man, one vote; for employing gerrymandering in its grossest form; for diluting the vote of certain ethnic groups, and for other reasons.

Recognizing the need for expert assistance in this troublesome and complex problem of reapportionment, this Court then appointed Mr. Edward J. Steimel, Executive Director of the Public Affairs Research Council (PAR), as Special Master pursuant to the provisions of Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directed him "to hold hearings, if he deems it advisable, or to receive proposed reapportionment plans from the parties involved in these suits, and to evaluate those plans and to prepare and present to this Court a total, complete plan of reapportionment of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Louisiana which will most nearly comply with the one man, one vote mandate of the United States Supreme Court." Mr. Steimel neither holds nor seeks public office and his expertise in the field of reapportionment is well recognized. The three judge court in Bannister recognized his qualifications in this area when they noted that:

"In view of the fact that the Public Affairs Research Council has prepared a reapportionment plan for Louisiana that appears, generally speaking, to be fair and rational, the defendants would carry a heavy burden if they should assert that it is impossible to reapportion lawfully unless the size of the legislative body is increased." 263 F.Supp. 202, 208.

Pursuant to this order, the Special Master held four (4) days of hearings during which over 100 persons were heard, including approximately 80 legislators. All proposed plans offered were accepted and evaluated by the Special Master. No one was denied a hearing and no one was denied the opportunity to present suggested plans. After four days of hearings, the Special Master prepared and presented to the Court his findings and conclusions in the form of a "Reapportionment Plan for the Louisiana Legislature", together with maps and supporting exhibits, all of which are filed of record in this case as Exhibits "A" through "W". Thereafter, after a thorough review and evaluation of the Special Master's report, this Court concluded that there was no manifest error therein, and that the proposed plan did, in fact, comply with all of the requirements of law, and that the plaintiffs were, as a matter of law, entitled to the relief which they sought, and that therefore the Plan for Reapportionment presented by the Special Master should be adopted and imposed by the Court upon the Louisiana Legislature. Accordingly, an order to that effect was entered on August 24, 1971, along with written reasons therefor.

In the prayer of plaintiffs' complaint, it was requested that:

"In a form and manner to be determined by the Court, a plan of reapportionment of the Louisiana Legislature be fashioned and put into effect so as to guarantee to petitioners in the forthcoming elections their rights and privileges as citizens of the United States, to equal protection of the laws secured them by the Constitution and laws of the United States and their civil rights, secured by law."

This, in the opinion of the Court, is precisely what the Order of August 24, 1971, did. Plaintiffs, in whose favor judgment had been rendered, filed a "Motion for New Trial" on August 26, 1971, which motion, for written reasons assigned, was denied on August 27, 1971. Plaintiffs in one suit and defendants in all suits then perfected an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who, in turn, on September 4, 1971, ordered this Court "to conduct an expedited hearing in open court in compliance with Rule 53(e) (2)." This Order was not received by this Court until September 7, 1971, on which date telegraphic notice was sent to all counsel of record notifying them of a hearing to be held on September 8, 1971 at 10:00 o'clock a. m. All counsel were present for that hearing and at the commencement of the hearing plaintiffs belatedly filed the objections required by Rule 53(e) (2), which were accepted and filed of record. It is the testimony adduced at this hearing of September 8, 1971, that is now before the Court. The question presented is whether or not the report of the Special Master should be accepted by the Court as is, or whether it should be altered and accepted, or whether it should be rejected completely.

THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1971

As set forth in the preceding background analysis, this hearing was held pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals dated September 4, 1971. Counsel for all parties to these suits were present and participated. Others who, at the last moment, attempted to intervene as parties or to be enrolled as additional counsel of record were denied that privilege on the ground that since the hearing was already underway, these motions simply came too late, but all were permitted to appear as amicus curiae and to file any and all proposed plans for reapportionment that they wished to file. No one was denied this privilege. A full evidentiary hearing was held with no time limits placed on anyone. At the close of the testimony the Court noted that no one had called the Special Master as a witness to question him about the plan which he had presented to the Court. Whereupon the Court announced to all counsel that Mr. Steimel was present in Court and was available to be...