London v. East Feliciana Parish Policy Jury | Cases | Westlaw

Consequently, defendants strenuously object to the admissibility of the depositions submitted by plaintiffs on the grounds that their attorney was not present at the taking of the depositions and had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no opportunity for normal discovery procedure. Taking defendants' objections into consideration, the Court feels that the imminence of the up-coming elections require this matter to be decided expeditiously and for that reason deems the depositions submitted by plaintiffs, as well as the affidavits submitted by defendants, as admissible and has taken same into consideration in reaching this decision, keeping in mind the objection that both plaintiffs' depositions and defendants' affidavits are somewhat self-serving *135 declarations as there was no opportunity for cross-examination by either side and no opportunity to present rebuttal evidence by defendants.

1. Although it is true that under the doctrine of Allen v. Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969) and Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 91 S.Ct. 431, 27 L.Ed.2d 476 (1971) even though the Attorney General has approved a submission, plaintiffs are still entitled to a determination by this Court as to whether the plan is unconstitutional in the respect alleged by plaintiffs. But there is nothing in those decisions which implies that this Court should not give great *137 weight to the finding and determination of the Attorney General of the United States.

3. Plaintiffs attempt to collaterally attack the election laws of the State of Louisiana which require a candidate to ultimately receive a majority of the votes cast before he can have been deemed to have been elected, and which require voters to carry out their civic responsibility in voting for candidates for every seat to be filled. However, plaintiffs cite no case which holds that such laws are unconstitutional and this Court finds, as a matter of law, that such an attack may not be made collaterally in a proceeding of this type.

4. Plaintiffs attack that feature of the Board's plan which provides for what plaintiffs erroneously refer to as a “place” system. The only feature of the Board's proposed reapportionment plan which resembles a “place” system is that in the multi-member district, seats or “places” have been designated different lengths of term of office in order to reestablish the staggered terms of office for School Board members so that approximately one-third of the Board stands for re-election every 2 years. This is required by Louisiana law and encouraged by educators throughout the state. Consequently, the so-called “place” feature of the Board's plan will be in effect only for this election. Thereafter, the various seats in the multi-member districts will come up for election singly, and at different times, so that the so-called “place” feature is thereafter eliminated. Even if the so-called “place” feature could, under other circumstances, be deemed to effect the constitutionality of the plan, the Court is satisfied that, as a matter of law, it cannot be so considered under these circumstances.

5. There is nothing unconstitutional about the use of multi-member districts, especially where the use of such districts does not discriminate against or significantly dilute the voting power of minority groups, and no such discrimination or dilution has been shown here. Therefore, as a matter of law, the use of the multi-member districts included in the plan presented here does not result in a constitutional infirmity.

6. Plaintiffs also attack that feature of the Board's plan which would permit three out of the twelve members of the Board who were recently elected from districts whose boundaries and constituencies will not be changed in the slightest degree under the new reapportionment plan to serve the remainder of their term. This Court is aware of the cases cited by plaintiff which require all members of an elected body to stand for re-election when that political body is reapportioned. However, the Court is satisfied that it would be grossly unfair and unequitable to require a person whose district was not malapportioned when he was elected, only two years ago, to stand for re-election now simply because the district of some other board member was malapportioned at the time he was elected. The law should not, and in the opinion of this Court does not require this.

7. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the East Feliciana Parish School Board voluntarily undertook, in good faith, to reapportion itself as required by the Constitution of the United States and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. The School Board then *138 submitted its proposed plan to the Attorney General of the United States in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the previous order of this Court. The Attorney General has examined the proposed plan of the School Board, as amended, with regard to whether or not such plan is discriminatory and has now found that it is not discriminatory, including the sole feature of the plan here attacked by plaintiffs. His decision, in carrying out the duties and responsibilities delegated to him by the Congress of the United States, is entitled to great weight. The evidence submitted by plaintiffs to show past discrimination in East Feliciana Parish is, to a great extent, self-serving and hearsay and insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain plaintiffs' attack herein. Furthermore, giving such evidence its greatest value, it would not be sufficient, as a matter of law, to justify attributing to this School Board and its reapportionment plan any impure motives of purposeful discrimination or dilution of the black vote. Neither would it sustain the burden of showing that the Board's reapportionment plan was conceived or will be operated to foster racial discrimination.