Clark v. Roemer

• Decision Date: 12 June 1990
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 86-435-A.
• Citation: 777 F. Supp. 445
• Parties: Janice G. CLARK, et al. v. Charles "Buddy" ROEMER, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

777 F. Supp. 445

Janice G. CLARK, et al. v. Charles "Buddy" ROEMER, et al.

Civ. A. No. 86-435-A.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

June 12, 1990.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ernest L. Johnson, T. Richardson Bobb, Baton Rouge, La., Robert McDuff, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., Ulysses Thibodeaux, Newman & Thibodeaux, Lake Charles, La., for plaintiffs.

Kenneth C. DeJean, Roy A. Mongrue, Office of Atty. Gen., Louisiana Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, La., Robert G. Pugh, Robert G. Pugh, Jr., Pugh, Pugh & Pugh, Shreveport, La., John N. Kennedy, Office of the Governor, Cynthia Y. Rougeou, Angie Rogers LaPlace, Office of Secretary of State, Baton Rouge, La., for defendants Charles "Buddy" Roemer, Governor of Louisiana; William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen. of the State of La., Fox McKeithen, Secretary of State of La.

Michael H. Rubin, Christina Peck, Rubin, Curry, Colvin & Joseph, Baton Rouge, La., for intervenor Louisiana Dist. Judges Ass'n.

Fred J. Cassibry, Jan T. Van Loon, Sandra A. Vujnovich, Brook, Morial, Cassibry & Pizza, New Orleans, La., for intervenor Orleans Parish Dist. Judges Ass'n.

George Blair, Yvonne Hughes, Skidmore, Hughes & Associates, New Orleans, La., for intervenor Louis A. Martinet Soc.

P. Raymond Lamonica, U.S. Atty., M.D.La., Baton Rouge, La., Robert S. Berman, Voting Section, Civ. Rights Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for intervenor U.S.

Jack Benjamin, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae, Louisiana Organization of Judicial Excellence.

Frank Foil, Chairman, Litigation Committee, Baton Rouge, La., for amicus curiae, Conference of Court of Appeal Judges.

H. Alston Johnston, III, Baton Rouge, La., for amicus curiae, First and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Robert McLeod, McLeod, Swearingen, Verlander, Dollar, Price & Noah, Monroe, La., for amicus curiae, Second Circuit Court of Appeal.

Harry A. Rosenberg, M. Nan Allessandra, Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Fred J. Cassibry, Brook, Morial, Cassibry & Pizza, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae, 24th Judicial Dist. Court.

Jess J. Waguespack, Assumption Bar Ass'n, Napoleonville, La., for amicus curiae, Assumption Bar Ass'n.

Petter F. Caviness, Opelousas, La., for amicus curiae, St. Landry Bar Ass'n.

Lila Tritico Hogan, pro se.

Carolyn Lahr Ott, pro se.

Linda L. Holliday, pro se.

Thomas J. Malik, pro se.

Madeline Jasmine, pro se.

Raymond L. Cannon, pro se.

Felicia Toney Williams, Moses Junior Williams, pro se.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REMEDY PHASE

JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge.

A. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In view of the holding of the Fifth Circuit in Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Roemer v. Chisom, 488 U.S. 955, 109 S.Ct. 390, 102 L.Ed.2d 379 (1988), this court assumed that its path was rather clearly staked by the appellate court. However, on May 11, 1990, the decision of the Fifth Circuit came down in League of United Latin Am. Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 902 F.2d 293 (5th Cir.1990). That case effectively undercuts the teaching of Chisom because it holds that, although Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, does indeed apply to judicial elections, the use of at-large election districts in the election of Texas trial judges does not violate Section 2. Since Louisiana's trial judges are also elected at-large, that holding, if it becomes final, will have a significant impact upon the decision which this court must hand down in this Louisiana case.

This case has been tried and decided on the violation issues and the Louisiana Legislature was granted time to present a remedy which the Legislature failed to do. This case has also been tried on the remedy phase and the court was on the verge of presenting its decision on the remaining issues when the decision in the Texas case came down. The Fifth Circuit has now granted rehearing en banc in the Texas case which has the effect of vacating the opinion of the panel. League of United Latin Am. Citizens Council No. 44346 v. Clements, 902 F.2d 322 (5th Cir.1990). The Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral argument for June 19, 1990. The LULAC opinion is thus suspended and as of this writing, the only appellate guidance available to this court is Chisom v. Edwards.

Under ordinary circumstances this court would simply delay its decision pending final appellate court judgment. These are not ordinary circumstances, however. The court has concluded that delaying its decision in this case would disserve the cause of justice. Some of the factors which lead to this conclusion are:

Louisiana has judicial elections scheduled generally in 1990. Time is required to gear up for those elections both by the candidates and the state officials charged with conducting the elections. There are vacancies in the state judicial system which need to be filled but which, because of the state's consent injunction, cannot be filled. As will be seen, infra, this court does not find a Section 2 violation in every district and it is imperative that elections be allowed to proceed free of federal interference in those districts in which no Section 2 violation is found.

Throughout the course of this litigation, this court has marched to the solitary beat of its own drum, insisting that if Louisiana's system for selecting its judges produces violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the remedy should be to revise the system, not to make adjustments in a few "guilty" districts which may well need adjusting again in the future. (See, for example, the views expressed at Clark v. Edwards, 725 F.Supp. 285 at 294-295) (M.D.La.1988). None of the parties — plaintiffs, defendants, or intervenors — have joined the court's march. Each insists that, as a finding of a Section 2 violation is district specific, so any remedy must also be limited to districts in which specific violations have been found.¹ For reasons stated later, the court concludes that it lacks the power to impose a systemic remedy upon the state and that any remedy is indeed limited to "guilty" districts. Both the parties and the appellate court need to be aware of this court's findings of fact. If, because of the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the Texas case, revisions in this court's conclusions of law are required, so be it. Accordingly, it is imperative that the state be permitted to fill judicial vacancies as rapidly as possible, in these districts in which no violation is found.

B. BACKGROUND OF CASE

This is a class action brought by black voters and black lawyers who possess the qualifications to be elected to the offices of Louisiana district judge, family court judge and court of appeal judge. Plaintiffs claim that the use by Louisiana of multimember election districts to elect these judicial officers operates to dilute black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiffs also assert claims of racial voter discrimination under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Trial was had on the liability issues and the court concluded that the use of multimember election districts has indeed produced violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in some of Louisiana's judicial districts. In view of the finding of statutory violations, the constitutional claims were not addressed. See Clark v. Edwards, 725 F.Supp. 285 (M.D.La.1988).

On December 15, 1988, the State of Louisiana requested and was granted time to attempt to structure remedial legislation during the 1989 Regular Session of the Legislature and for such additional time as might be required to submit to the electorate any amendments to Louisiana's Constitution which might be required relative to revising the State's judicial selection process. Plaintiffs opposed the request.

At the same time, the State consented to an injunction which prohibits filling by election positions "now vacant" for the family court, district courts and courts of appeal, "pending the issuance of further orders by this Court."

It should also be noted that a three-judge court was convened in this case under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, because Louisiana had created judgeships and had taken other actions regarding judicial election procedures which had not been submitted for approval to either the Attorney General of the United States or to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). The three-judge court enjoined implementation of a number of such changes and the State authorities proceeded to submit a number of such changes to the Attorney General. In due course, letters of "no objection" issued as to several changes which the State was then allowed to implement. On September 27, 1988, the three-judge court enjoined the implementation of La. Act 801 of 1987 which created four new judgeships in the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal. That injunctive order was predicated upon the formal objection of the Attorney General to implementation of Act 801. That injunctive order remains in effect and will be unaffected by any order of this single-judge court. See Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra.

Eventually, the Legislature did come up with a number of specific changes in judicial election procedures in some judicial districts. Some of the changes required revisions to Louisiana's Constitution and, under the direction of the Legislature, the entire "package" was submitted to a vote of the people of Louisiana. In November, 1989, the people rejected the proposed revisions. The Legislature has submitted nothing to this court.

The matter has now been heard on the remedy phase and numerous proposals have been presented to the court by the original parties as well as by a host of intervenors. Other...