United States v. Lucky
| Decision Date | 11 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8366. |
| Citation | 239 F. Supp. 233 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Mae LUCKY, Registrar of Voters of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, the Citizens Council of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept. of Justice, John Doar, Asst. Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward L. Shaheen, U. S. Atty., for Western Dist. of Louisiana, Shreveport, La., for the Government.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., and Harry J. Kron, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La., Albin P. Lassiter, Dist. Atty., Ouachita Parish, Lovell E. Hayden III, Sholars, Gunby & Allbritton, Robert W. Kostelka, Monroe, La., W. M. Shaw, Shaw & Shaw, Homer, La., for defendants.
1. This suit was filed by the Attorney General of the United States under the Civil Rights Act of 1957, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1971). The complaint alleges that the defendants have engaged in acts and practices which have deprived Negro citizens of the right to register and vote in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, without distinction of race or color.
2. Named as defendants are Mae Lucky, Registrar of Voters of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana; the State of Louisiana; the Citizens Council of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana; and eighteen individuals who allegedly conducted a purge of the voter registration rolls in the Spring of 1956.
3. Mae Lucky has been the Registrar of Voters of Ouachita Parish since January 2, 1953. As Registrar, her function is to receive applications for registration from prospective electors and to determine whether or not they are qualified to register to vote. Mrs. Lucky resides in and maintains her office at Monroe, Louisiana, in Ouachita Parish.
4. The Ouachita Parish Police Jury adopted the permanent registration system in 1952. Under this system all persons registered to vote in Ouachita Parish at the end of 1952 were eligible for permanent registration without making further application and without taking qualification tests. During the period between January and July, 1953, the Registrar converted the Ouachita Parish voter registration records from periodic registration to the permanent registration system.
5. Prior to 1956 applicants for registration to vote in Ouachita Parish were not required to read or interpret any part of the State or United States Constitution or to take any other test of literacy, intelligence or knowledge. Many applicants for registration in Ouachita Parish were not required to fill out their own application cards without assistance.
6. The Registrar maintains two files for the application cards of registered voters in Ouachita Parish. One file is for Negro voters and the other for white voters, and each file is an alphabetical list of voters by precinct and ward. These separate files are kept for the purpose of completing monthly and annual statistical reports to the Board of Registration of the State of Louisiana.
7. At the time of the Democratic Party primary election for State officers in January, 1956, there were 21,274 white voters and 4,518 Negro voters permanently registered in Ouachita Parish.
8. In February, 1956, the Registrar commenced a systematic inspection of all application cards on file of persons then registered to vote in Ouachita Parish. She went through her files precinct by precinct, beginning with Ward One, Precinct One. As a result of this examination the Registrar sent a letter to each voter she determined to be registered improperly, based on the laws of Louisiana in effect at that time. Each voter who received a letter was required to appear in person at the office of the Registrar and make out a new application card in order to remain on the registration rolls. Those who did not appear were removed from the active files in April, 1956. As a result of this systematic examination 888 white persons and 634 Negroes then were removed from the active voting rolls.
9. During April, 1956, a group of citizens came to the office of the Registrar and examined the application cards of persons then registered to vote in Ouachita Parish, and as a result they filed with the Registrar Affidavits of Challenge, challenging the registration status of persons then registered to vote on the ground that they were registered illegally. They also presented to the Registrar citations to be mailed to the challenged voters. In accordance with LSA-R.S. 18:133 (1950), the Registrar mailed these citations and a copy of the Affidavits of Challenge to the challenged voters, notifying them that they must appear before the Registrar within 10 days and prove their right to remain on the registration rolls by an affidavit signed by three registered voters. Notice of the challenges was also published in the Monroe newspaper. A total of 4,047 Negroes and 37 whites were challenged at this time by these citizens. From that group of challenged voters, 917 Negroes and 21 whites filed affidavits of retention and were retained on the rolls.
10. The Affidavits of Challenge were signed by the following defendants: Billye L. Adams, Felix E. Brossett, Wirt H. Dean, Rev. H. L. Driskell, John Feeback, Vaughn Phelps, Walter B. Reed, Aguilla G. Rivers, Jr., James C. Ussery, Wesley Burdine, Antham B. Johnston, Don L. Williams, Jimmie J. Evans, James W. Gibson, Algernon C. Ransom, and Tommy Thorp.
At this time Billye L. Adams was President of the Citizens Council of Ouachita Parish, and Vaughn L. Phelps was Secretary of that organization. While some of the other individuals made defendants were members of the Citizens Council, it does not appear that they acted as agents of the Citizens Council when they examined the voter rolls and prepared the affidavits of challenge. Their actions grew out of a citizens' meeting held early in 1956 with which the Citizens Council was in sympathy, but the Citizens Council took no official action to help issue the challenges and did not authorize any of the individual defendants to do so.
11. In response to these challenges, and those issued by the Registrar, great numbers of voters went to the Ouachita Parish Courthouse to file affidavits of retention. The lines of voters were so great that the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Department had to hand out priority numbers to persons attempting to get into the Registrar's office. The Registrar was not able to process each day more than approximately 100 persons seeking reinstatement. Each voter seeking to be retained on the rolls was required to file an affidavit of retention, and prior to May 1, 1956, due to a misunderstanding of Louisiana law, the Registrar would not accept an affidavit of retention unless it was signed by three persons who were registered to vote in the challenged voter's ward and precinct and whose registration status was not under challenge. In addition, prior to May 1, 1956, the Registrar would not permit a voter to sign an affidavit of retention for more than one challenged voter. This practice was ended after May 1, 1956. These requirements were applied alike to white and Negro voters.
12. In June, 1956, the Registrar commenced another systematic examination of all application cards on file of persons then registered to vote in Ouachita Parish. This continued from the Summer of 1956 until the Spring of 1957. The Registrar again went through the files precinct by precinct and examined the card of each white and Negro voter, and she then sent a letter of challenge to each voter she determined to be registered improperly. The names of these challenged voters were published in the Monroe News Star. These challenges were issued because of errors which the Registrar found on their registration application cards. If any error was found on a voter's card, that error was checked and a challenge issued, regardless of the race of that particular voter. During this period the Registrar issued letters of challenge to 8,499 white persons and to 1,157 Negroes.
13. Since January 1956, the Registrar has required all applicants for registration to fill out an application card without error or omission. If the Registrar determines that an applicant has made an error or an omission, his application for voter registration is rejected. Such applicant is required to complete another card in order to register. The applicant is given another opportunity at that time to complete correctly an application card. If he cannot do so, he must come at another time to make another application for registration. This practice was shown to be identical for white and Negro voters.
14. La.Const. (1921) Art. 8, § 1(c), L.S.A. provides that an applicant for registration must demonstrate his ability to read and write by filling out the application form in his own handwriting "* * * in the presence of the registration officer or his deputy, without assistance or suggestion from any person or any memorandum whatever, other than the form of application * * *." It is in compliance with this provision that the Registrar has adopted the requirements that the application card must be completed without errors or omissions.
15. Between January, 1957, and January, 1961, the Registrar periodically conducted systematic examinations of the application cards of persons then registered to vote in Ouachita Parish to determine whether there was any inconsistency between the address given by the voter on his application card and the information contained in various directories, such as the city directory or the telephone book. As a result of these examinations the Registrar sent letters of challenge to voters whose application cards showed an address inconsistent with that listed for the voter or showed an address listed in another person's name. These letters were sent to both white and Negro voters.
16. During the period from July, 1961, to the time of trial, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullarkey v. Borglum
...it was in McElveen and Thomas in the challenges to the registration status of Negroes. 196 F.Supp. 908 (W.D.La.1961). United States v. Lucky, 239 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.La.1965) involved the same situation as that involved in McElveen, i. e., challenges by Citizen's Council members to Negro regis......