[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3475-H3481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and all of its amendments thereto.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go before a panel
and present different legal arguments as relates to redistricting in
Louisiana and
[[Page H3476]]
perhaps redistricting across the country. Tonight, I would like to take
a little time to talk about where we are today and how we got to this
point. I am very pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague
from the 12th Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. Jackson.
Tonight, I want to from a historical perspective talk about the
Voting Rights Act, why it was passed and where we are today with it and
then try to talk a little bit about the cases that are pending in the
Supreme Court and give some sense of logic to what State legislatures
should be doing and particularly in the State of Louisiana. Because I
think many of these redistricting challenges are not based on
constitutional law as much as they are based on financial gain, for
lawyers and for plaintiffs, and I plan to talk about that later in this
discussion.
But at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Illinois as much time as he may consume.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate
the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for the
vigilance that he has shown and the people of the Fourth Congressional
District of Louisiana as they have fought to uphold the law of the 1965
Voting Rights Act which has in part and in no small measure created the
kind of diversity in the Federal Government, the kind of diversity in
State government, the kind of diversity in political legislative bodies
all across our country. There has never been since Plessy versus
Ferguson was decided in 1897 which ran 22 African-Americans out of this
distinguished body and ran African-Americans and other minorities out
of State legislatures around this country the kind of representation
that African-Americans, Latinos, women, and other minorities in this
country presently have come to appreciate.
{time} 2100
I want to offer certainly a level of congratulations again to the
gentleman from Louisiana for those State legislators who are presently
in Louisiana filibustering the attempt by that State legislature to
undermine the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. I want to
offer this evening an historical perspective and then hear from the
gentleman from Louisiana and then engage the gentleman in a colloquy
about the sustenance of the Voting Rights Act of 1968.
In June 1993, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that
threatened to return this country to the days of separate but equal.
The decision in voting rights mocked the reality of persistent racial
inequality in America in the name of a color-blind society. Using the
Constitution's guarantee of equality, the Court has given the green
light to willful racial exclusion in the political process.
In the past, damaging interpretations of civil rights laws could be
minimized by congressional amendments to clarify the law. The Court's
ruling in these voting rights cases calls into question our ability to
seek redress in this, the body of the people. In Shaw versus Reno,
after the creation of majority African-American congressional districts
in North Carolina, blacks elected the first African-American to
Congress since Reconstruction. Even with two majority African-American
districts, white voters who make up 76 percent of that State's
population, continued to control more than their share, 83 percent, of
North Carolina congressional seats. Yet the Court suggested that one
majority black district, because it was irregular in shape, was nothing
more than an effort to segregate the races, and I quote, for the
purposes of voting.
It said that such a district would, quote unquote, threaten to carry
us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer
matters. The Court is, in fact, saying that racial injustice no longer
exists. In reality, we live in a political system that is so racially
divided that race matters more than any one factor in a voter's choice
of candidates in American. Political encumbents whose main goal in
redistricting is to insure their own reelection, they know this. And
when they draw the district lines, computer technology can tell them
the racial composition of every census block. Indeed, many majority
white districts are drawn to exclude African-Americans and preserve
white constituencies in the last reapportionment, they look as unusual
as the black districts singled out by the Supreme Court. In many cases,
compact minority districts are hard to draw because African-Americans
and Hispanics are concentrated in isolated communities.
The census blocks in these communities were defined long ago by
legalized residential segregation. This was the target of Dr. King's
last civil rights march in 1966.
Creating majority black districts does not harm white voters. Indeed,
there is no State in the country in which whites are underrepresented
in State legislatures or in this body, the 104th Congress. Even with
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, African-Americans and other
minorities continue to be barred from their fair share of political
power nationwide. Given the racial division among voters and the bitter
history of African-American electoral exclusion, African-American
districts provide the most widely accepted means of allowing black
voters full participation, a bear minimum for citizenship in this
democracy. Concern with the shape of a district should obviously pale
in comparison.
When Shaw versus Reno was decided, too many in the voting rights
community initially sought to characterize it as a narrow decision
which, while potentially damaging, it was not a fundamental attack on
the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I was very
concerned about this opinion because I viewed it as a signal that it
would encourage those opposed to the Voting Rights Act to challenge it
everywhere. This is exactly what has happened since the Shaw decision.
Mr. Speaker, voting rights and the law protecting these rights were
one of the few areas to remain largely intact following the Reagan and
Bush onslaught. In voting rights cases, they must first prove
intentional discrimination on the part of the State to succeed in a
Voting Rights Act case. Congress disagreed with the City of Mobile
versus Bolden and they disagreed with the Supreme Court's
interpretation and ruling in the Bolden case, and in 1982, they amended
the Voting Rights Act to specifically overrule that decision. In fact,
Congress strengthened the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis to
make it plain that discrimination against minority voters continued to
persist and that an important test was not intent, which is often
difficult to prove, but instead was the effect on minority voters. In
1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1982
amendments in Thornburg versus Gingles, and it was against this
background that the State legislatures determined the Constitution
required that majority-minority districts be drawn to avoid violating
the law.
The Shaw decision resurrected the intent question by turning the
Voting Rights Act on its head in order to recognize the right of white
plaintiffs, who do not even live in these congressional districts, to
challenge districts that were intended in the first place to lead to
greater minority representation in this body, in the Louisiana State
Legislature and the North Carolina Legislature, in State legislatures
around this country. The objective of the Voting Rights Act was to
desegregate the institutions of power that heretofore historically had
been denied to African-Americans, women, and to other minorities.
Most recently, in the Fifth Circuit decision in Hays versus
Louisiana, they sought to apply Shaw to answer a totally different
question: Is there a compelling State interest in designating a
congressional district using race as one of many criteria so that
racial minorities have an equal opportunity of winning? The court in
Hays concluded that the Louisiana plan, the seat of the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] was not narrowly tailored to further a
compelling State interest.
Hayes was obviously troubling for a number of reasons. To recognize
the standing of white citizens to attack majority-minority districts,
the court cited regents of the University of California versus Bakke in
1978, in addition to Shaw and Croson. Thus, the fact of a color-blind
Constitution and country was elevated by the case in Louisiana, Hays
versus Louisiana, to strike down the Louisiana plan. The Hays court
relied on a 1964 decision, Wright versus Rockefeller, a case that was
decided before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, to
[[Page H3477]]
define a racially gerrymandered districting plan as one that, quote
unquote, intentionally draws one or more districts along racial lines
or otherwise segregates citizens into voting districts based on their
race.
The court also cited Bolden in support of this point. The Hays court
seems to have ignored the fact that the 1982 amendments by this
Congress overturned Bolden. The only citation the court makes of
those amendments is to assert that section 2 expressly declares that
proportional representation is not required.
On Thursday, June 30, 1994, exactly 1 year to the day after the Shaw
versus Reno decision undermined a North Carolina redistricting plan
designed to give African-Americans greater representation after
Reconstruction, the Court struck again. In two separate opinions, a
Florida case, Johnson versus DeGrande, and a Georgia case Holder versus
Hall, the Court sought to limit a broad interpretation of section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 outlaws all forms of voter
discrimination.
Congress intended a broad interpretation so as to be able to address
the various and subtle forms of voter denial, but the Court appears
increasingly unwilling to use an interpretation that expands the notion
of democracy for all Americans. As a New York Times editorial said, the
Court was driven by a core of justices who evince no respect for
Congress whatsoever. Justice Clarence Thomas and Mr. Antonin Scalia are
leading the challenge against the Voting Rights Act.
And so today, there are legislators in Louisiana who are engaged in a
filibuster so that the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana will
remain intact.
I brought, today, a map to show the changes that the Fourth
Congressional District of Louisiana has gone through in the last year.
In the Louisiana case, the Court said racial gerrymandering was
unconstitutional. In a State 30-percent black, only two Congresspersons
have been elected since Reconstruction. The first Louisiana plan, 65
percent black, 35 percent white. The second Louisiana plan after this
plan was thrown out created a new congressional district, 55 percent
black, 45 percent white. And now the State legislature in Louisiana is
presently filibustering to keep the third plan from becoming a matter
of law, thus moving this district 70 percent white to 30 percent black.
So a district that is almost 50 percent black and 50 percent white
has been declared unconstitutional, but now we have a district that the
court, Reagan-appointed judges and Nixon-appointed judges in Louisiana
are now saying that a district 70 percent white but with 30 percent
minorities is constitutional.
I would like to yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I thank the gentleman for sharing this special order with
me.
I want to also talk a little bit about some of the history, not only
in Louisiana but all across this country, as relates to the Voting
Rights Act. As the gentleman knows, the Voting Rights Act was actually
instituted by this institution simply because of the denial of due
process in the voting arena. Individuals of color, as a matter of fact
women as well, could not participate in the electoral process simply
because they were women and simply because they were Hispanic, simply
because they were black or African-Americans and, therefore, this
esteemed body thought enough of this country to pass something called a
Voting Rights Act.
Did the gentleman know that there were individuals who would try to
register to vote, but simply because they were African-Americans, they
were not able to vote? And after it was illegal to deny a person the
opportunity to vote, State legislatures passed statutes that had
prohibitions in terms that made the registration process more
complicated. For example, I can recall talking to one of my professors
at Southern University that mentioned the fact that in order to
register to vote in Louisiana, you had to state the Preamble to the
Constitution. That was one thing that eliminated several voters,
several potential voters from the voting rolls, not only in Louisiana
but all across the country, particularly in the southern part of our
country.
Individuals had to state how many bubbles were in a bar of soap.
Asinine questions like that were presented to individuals before they
were able to gain access to the voting rolls. And then this Congress,
this esteemed body, decided that was enough of discrimination, that was
enough denial of due process and voting opportunities in this country
and they passed the Voting Rights Act.
That is what this whole discussion is about tonight. I want to talk
about Louisiana from a historical perspective as related to this
Congress. The State of Louisiana, we have sent over 184 individuals to
this body. One hundred eighty-four individuals from Louisiana have had
the opportunity to serve in this esteemed body. Of the 184, only 3 of
those individuals have been African-Americans, in spite of the fact
that Louisiana has always had a substantial minority population. I mean
even today, Louisiana's minority population is over 31 percent. Sending
184 people to sit in this Congress, the people's House, the House of
Representatives, and not having but three of those individuals come
from that State of African-American descent. And then to have one of
the districts that are presently under attack, presently drawn to give
an African-American an opportunity is absolutely, absolutely
unconscionable.
In 1812, Louisiana was admitted to the Union. Louisiana was admitted
as a State in 1812 to be a part of this great Union. Louisiana went
from 1812 to 1875 before it elected its first African-American to
Congress. So Louisiana went 63 years. From the time it was admitted to
the Union to 1875, 63 years without sending one African-American to
Congress. And the first African-American to ever serve in this body was
Charles Nash, who was elected in 1875 and served only one term. He
served from 1875 to 1877, and the reason why he was not reelected, it
wasn't because he did not want to come back to Congress and to serve
his constituency in the State of Louisiana and to do a good job and to
represent not only the people in his district but people in his State.
It was because the State legislature in Louisiana decided to pass laws
to prohibit many of his constituencies the opportunity to vote, to
register to vote.
They passed laws like literacy tests. They passed a poll tax. They
not only disenfranchised blacks, but they disenfranchised whites, as
well. Anyone who was poor in the State, as it was in many States across
the southern part of our country, could not gain access to the ballot
box because they did not own property. So Charles Nash, despite the
fact that he wanted to return to Congress, could not return to Congress
because many of the people who voted for him could not vote for him any
longer. So Louisiana went from 1877 to 1990 without electing one
African-American to Congress. That is 113 years. 113 years the State of
Louisiana did not have one African-American, despite the fact that
Louisiana had over 30 percent African-American population.
{time} 2115
Why? Because districts were gerrymandering to exclude minority votes
and not include minority voters. And as a result of that, they never
had the mere opportunity, not a guarantee but just a mere opportunity,
to run in a district where they could run and win.
So Louisiana's African-Americans, went a total of 176 years without
having one single voice here in this Congress from that esteemed State.
Now, today, the big debate in the State legislature is whether or not
we continue to have a Fourth Congressional District.
I am going to at this time yield to the gentleman, because I know he
is on a tight time schedule and will be joining me later in the special
order for a few minutes to further talk about some of--I see he has a
map display, so I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
I do want to apologize, because I am going to step away for a few
moments.
I wanted to show you a map of congressional districts around the
country, particularly southern congressional districts that are now
being challenged as a result of the decisions that are coming out of
Louisiana, that are coming out of North Carolina, and
[[Page H3478]]
that are certainly coming out of Florida.
It is really interesting to note, when we look at the district
formerly held by Barbara Jordan, Mickey Leland, and presently held by
Sheila Jackson-Lee, and the districts held by Representative Fields,
and by Mrs. Meek and Alcee Hastings in Florida, when we look at the
district of Cynthia McKinney, we note that these districts were drawn
to desegregate the institution of Congress, to give African-Americans
in a State where they have significant populations, like the State of
Louisiana, an equal opportunity of winning.
If there is any one thing that can be said about the present attacks
on the Voting Rights Act, it is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has
been effective. It has indeed worked. The reality is between 1863,
after the slaves had been freed, between 1863 and 1896, 22 African-
Americans were elected to serve in this Congress, and because, quite
frankly, in a bipartisan way many Democrats and many Republicans during
first Reconstruction sought to conspire to undermine the progress that
many African-Americans had made in first Reconstruction. That was the
Tilden-Hayes Compromise of 1877.
By 1896 they had stacked the Court, a conservative Court. They gave
us Plessy versus Ferguson. And by 1901, even through we had 22 African-
Americans in Congress, a gentleman stood right here on this floor and
said, ``We will be back.'' By 1901 there were zero blacks in Congress.
It was not until the 1954 Brown versus The Board of Education
decision establishing the principle of equal protection under the law
was decided by the Supreme Court that the Voting Rights Act then took
the impetus from the Supreme Court, along with the Civil Rights Act and
a whole host of other legislation that sought to apply the principle of
equal protection under the law to every facet of American life.
Therein lies the foundation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: lines
drawn in such a way as to create an equal opportunity for African-
Americans, for Latinos, and for others to serve not only in this body
but in State legislatures around the country.
Let me just at this point say that even with the enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act, African-Americans and other minorities continued to
be barred from a fair share of political power nationwide. For
example, there are now slightly over 7,500 African-American elected
officials, but African-Americans are about 12 to 13 percent of the
population and there are nearly 500,000 offices.
Thus, 12 percent of 500,000 is roughly 60,000 political offices that
should be rightfully held by African-Americans. Seven thousand five
hundred is a mere 1.5 percent of the offices that should be held by
African-Americans if elected on a fair basis, if they did not have to
go through annexations and gerrymandering and constant political games,
if you will, that are played by many State legislatures around this
country.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I certainly would.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman mentioned diversity, and
mentioned how the whole purpose of the Voting Rights Act or one of the
purposes of the Voting Rights Act was to integrate the political
system, such as the U.S. Congress and State legislatures across the
country. The gentleman is absolutely right.
Even today there are 535 Members that serve in the U.S. Congress, as
you know, there are 435 that serve in this esteemed body and then 100
across the hall in the other distinguished body. And of the 535
Members, only 40 of them are African-Americans. So for anyone to even
opine the thought that a person's rights have been violated simply
because there are 40 African-Americans in the U.S. Congress, in a body
that consists of 535 people, is absolutely wrong.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would yield for a moment,
there is also an assumption that African-Americans are incapable of
representing people beyond just African-Americans. My district, for
example, is about 65 percent African-American, about 30 percent white,
5 percent Jewish, and others. So I am capable, as a Member of Congress,
of representing a diverse district, as you are capable of representing
a diverse district. All the shape of these districts do is allow us an
equal opportunity of competing.
When Democrats in the State legislatures or Republicans in the State
legislatures get finished drawing lines in the State to accomplish
their political wills, African-Americans are never even considered,
Latinos are never even considered. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
mandates that these State legislatures take into account race as a
factor, not the factor in drawing congressional districts.
We have some Members of this Congress whose districts are drawn in
such a way to be economically gerrymandered. That is, they only
represent large industries and big businesses. You have others whose
districts are drawn representing primarily farmland. Well, our
districts primarily are inner city and they must take into account the
needs of the inner city, which more than likely are represented by
African-Americans.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentleman would yield, because the
gentleman is correct about diversity, and continuing on the point about
diversity, because many of the individuals, particularly the press,
they declare districts, the district that you represent and the
district that I represent and the district that many African-Americans
in the Congress represent, they declare them as, quote-unquote, black
districts, when in fact these are the most diverse districts in the
entire country.
These districts are not superminority districts, these districts are
very diverse districts. The district I represent and the district you
represent is not overwhelmingly--I mean not 70, 80, and 90 percent
African-American. They are very diverse. The district I represent is 55
percent black, 45 percent white. So how can one say the creation of
these districts segregates voters? As a matter of fact, these districts
desegregate voters and integrate voters. It brings voters together.
To say a district that is 98 percent majority is constitutional and
is integrated, and a district that is 55 percent minority and 45
percent majority is unconstitutional and segregated, defies all logic.
That is one of the reasons why State legislatures ought to leave this
decision to the courts.
I think the courts are still tussling with the idea of how to deal
with redistricting. Let us go back to Shaw versus Reno. In Shaw versus
Reno the Court went to great pains not to say that the creation of a
majority-minority district is unconstitutional in and of itself. Sandra
Day O'Connor used, I think in the dictum of the opinion, it is an
appearance of racial apartheid.
But they never said the creation of the district in North Carolina,
the 12th Congressional District which is represented by our colleague,
Mr. Watt, was unconstitutional. They simply said that if a district is
drawn, if a district looks so bizarre as to suggest that race was the
predominant factor in the creation of that district, it does not mean
it is unconstitutional, it simply means the State must show a
compelling stated reason why they draw it. And, second, that plan must
be narrowly tailored.
As soon as Shaw versus Reno was ruled on by the Supreme Court,
plaintiffs all across the southern part of the country rushed to their
courthouses and filed lawsuits, and started saying that if a district
is majority black or majority Hispanic it is unconstitutional. That is
not the declaration of the Court.
Then the Court came back in Johnson versus Miller, when they ruled
the district in Georgia was unconstitutional. They did not say it was
unconstitutional because it was majority black, they said it was
unconstitutional because race was the predominant factor as they saw
it, and the plan was not narrowly tailored.
Now, one of the problems that we have, one of the legal problems that
we have in this whole discussion is if plaintiffs are allowed to file
lawsuits in courts because they are of the minority, then that opens up
the floodgates of litigation that every citizen in this State will have
standing in the courts to file lawsuits, even tonight, if they feel
that their district was created based on race. Just the thought.
For example, in the State of Louisiana, the three judges in Louisiana
did
[[Page H3479]]
not even discover an injury, but they gave plaintiffs standing to file
a suit, and a suit went all the way to the Supreme Court. Later they
found that those plaintiffs did not even have standing. The basic
requirement to even get into court. The threshold requirement.
Everybody is rushing to judgment on these cases, and the Supreme
Court has yet to really deal with this issue in a definitive way.
You talked about diversity and Members representing all their
constituency. I am proud of the fact that I represent the most diverse
district in the State of Louisiana. I take great pride in that. My
district is almost a 50-50 district.
When I view my constituents, I do not view them as black constituents
or white constituents or Hispanic constituents or Jewish constituents.
I view them as constituents. When they have a problem, they have a
problem and they need the assistance of their Congressman and his
congressional office. That burden that the press and other people try
to put on Members, not only African-Americans but Hispanic----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Why is it that your district in Louisiana,
why is it you feel your district has been singled out above all other
districts in that State?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I can state several reasons why I feel that
the district has been singled out, one being the fact that it is a
majority-minority district. In Shaw versus Reno the Court, when it
ruled, it gave an invitation to plaintiffs all across or people all
across this country, that if you live in a majority-minority district
and you do not like the appearance of it, then you have the right to
file a lawsuit and you have a right to be heard. So I think plaintiffs,
as a result of Shaw versus Reno, filed this lawsuit, and simply because
it was a majority-minority district.
Now, these plaintiffs, you have a picture of a map of the Louisiana
district, and the gentleman had another map earlier that showed the
second phase of the Louisiana district. As you can see, Louisiana is
the only State in the Nation that has changed its congressional
district twice within 2 years. First they started with the Zorro plan,
and a lot of people considered that the Zorro plan because the minority
district was shaped by a Z.
I put evidence in the record in the Louisiana State Senate only
yesterday to show that the Zorro plan was not created in the 1990's.
The Zorro plan, in fact, was created in the 1970's, but it was not a
majority-minority district. It was a majority-minority district and it
was not called Zorro then, it was called a congressional district, and
it was about 80 percent majority. But because it is majority-minority,
now it is Zorro. It looks bad.
The Louisiana legislature, and I give great credit to the Louisiana
legislature, these men and women, after the Court ruled on Zorro, went
back to the drawing board and redrew the lines. They wanted to comply.
They went to great pains, they wanted to comply with the three judges
in Shreveport, LA, and they drew the Second District, which is just
like former and previous districts in Louisiana.
They did not want to deviate from redistricting principles in the
State, so they drew from the old eighth Congressional District because
the Court said this district is 66 percent minority, it ought to be 55.
they made it 55, and the Court still ruled that it was
unconstitutional.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Certainly.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. For another question. The gentleman had a
distinguished career serving in the Louisiana State legislature before
becoming a Member of this august and esteemed body. I would like to ask
the gentleman if he could articulate some of the considerations as a
State legislator that you confronted when you came into the census and
the reapportionment period in your State legislature.
It clearly was not just racial considerations. There clearly were
other considerations. Could the gentleman lay out some of those?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Absolutely. And for anyone to even think
that a redistricting plan, and I do not care if it is congressional, I
do not care if it is legislative or even a city council's plan or a
school board plan, to think that politics does not play a role, a
significant role in the drawing of these plans, is someone who is off
base.
You certainly cannot take the politics out of politics. When these
plans were drawn in Louisiana, they were drawn based on incumbency
protection, first; second, they were drawn based on the fact that
Louisiana moved from eight congressional districts to seven. So, of
course, districts were going to increase in size and not decrease in
size. That is just a logical thing for them to do.
{time} 2130
They were also drawn based on commonality of interest. What people in
north Louisiana have in common with people in south Louisiana, we have
always had districts that connected urban and rural communities
together. If we do not do that, we will not be able to live up to the
deviation of zero deviation or one man-one vote requirement by the
Constitution of the United States of America.
We are required by the Constitution to have proportioned districts.
Legislatures have to apportion districts based on the number of people
in each, and each district must have as close to an equal amount of
people in one as it does in the other in order to pass the deviation
requirement.
I was talking about Shaw versus Reno, Mr. Speaker. Shaw versus Reno
did not rule that districts were unconstitutional if they were majority
minority. Plaintiffs all across the country decided to file lawsuits.
Going back to the State of Louisiana, because I have tried to deal with
the question of how is a voter injured in my district, because I walk
into this body and to these halls and to this august building every day
and try to do my very best. I go home every week and I try to represent
my constituents to the best of my ability. I try to have a staff that
is zealous and caring and concerned.
I have held more town hall meetings than any other Member of Congress
from my State and perhaps in this whole Congress. So I have tried to go
beyond the call of duty not to give any constituent rhyme or reason to
say that I have not represented my constituents to the best of my
abilities.
When the lawyers started to take depositions, the deposition of these
plaintiffs who said, I have been injured because I live in Congressman
Fields district or the district that he represents, we took the
deposition. Let me tell my colleagues about these injuries: How do you
feel about Congressman Fields? Well, he is a great guy. He works hard.
I like him personally. But he is liberal.
That is injury No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2, under oath, what is your
injury? Well, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican. So I am injured.
The plaintiff No. 3, what is your injury? This is under oath, in the
record, I ran for Congress and I was defeated. So I am injured.
Not one person who filed a lawsuit against the constitutionality or
against this district has been able to allege any real significant
injury or any injury at all.
Mr. Speaker, I started toying with this whole notion of what is wrong
with the district, what is wrong with me as a Representative. I first
dealt with the district thing and I said, listen, Louisiana has been
creating districts, extended over 200 miles since we have had
congressional districts. So you cannot say because the district is over
200 miles you are injured because four other districts in the State
extend over 200 miles. So that is not an injury. And you cannot allege
that. Well, it is irregularly shaped. Well, Louisiana has always had
irregularly shaped districts. For crying out loud, look at the State of
Louisiana, it is not a perfect square or a perfect box, it is a boot.
So you tell me how in the world you are going to have seven perfect
squares or circles in the State of Louisiana when the State itself is
shaped like a boot.
I mean most States do not look like squares and boxes. They look like
animal cookies. So there is no injury there. Then when we finally got
this case to the Supreme Court, I was as excited as anybody else
because I, for
[[Page H3480]]
one, want to put this issue of redistricting behind me once and for
all.
Now, right now in the Louisiana, the Fourth Congressional District is
in the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs insist to the Governor of their
State that he put redistricting in the court, when there are very
important issues in the State of Louisiana that must be dealt with,
issues like education, issues like deficit reduction, real issues that
must be dealt with for the survival and the future of our children in
the State of Louisiana.
And I wondered, why would they put redistricting on the calendar when
redistricting right now, the lawsuit is in the Supreme Court, which
will ultimately make the decision anyway. And then I started to do my
research, Mr. Speaker.
I found out that it really was not about injury, that it was not
about it and is not about a plaintiff really being hurt. This whole
issue is about money. It is about how plaintiffs receive damages, how
they receive money.
This is beginning to be a trend. It really bothers me that people
would have the audacity to file lawsuits not only in Louisiana but
across this country for financial gain. The Hays versus Louisiana case,
Hays being the main plaintiff who filed the lawsuit, prevailed in the
lower court, went to the Supreme Court, lost. Back to the three judge
panel in Shreveport, now is before the Supreme Court again. And I often
wondered why Hays is still a plaintiff because Hays has been ruled by
the Supreme Court that he does not even have standing. He just does not
have justiciability.
Mr. Speaker, then I pulled the records from the court. I found that
Hays' attorney, the plaintiff's attorney, decided to withdraw from the
case. Mr. Speaker, why did he withdraw from the case? It was because he
did not want to deal with this constitutional issue anymore. It was not
because he did not want to see the case through to the final appeal. It
was because these plaintiffs, according to this affidavit that was
filed in the Federal court, wanted money.
I thought these plaintiffs had a problem with the constitutionality
of the district and they were injured because their rights were
violated. I wanted to share with the Speaker and Members of the House
this affidavit that is public record, has been filed in the Western
District of Louisiana. This affidavit, I will not go through the entire
affidavit, but I would like to talk about two sections of it, sections
2 and 3.
Section 2, the counsel said, these are his words, counsel withdrew
from further representation of the plaintiffs in this matter because of
the demands made by plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley that the fee
application in this matter to be submitted under 42 USC 1988 include
fictitious paralegal fees, fictitious activities allegedly performed by
the plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley and that counsel split. For
crying out loud, I really thought the plaintiffs thought they were
injured. I thought this was a constitutional question, that the counsel
split with the plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley all attorney fees
awarded to counsel in this litigation and the redistricting litigation
in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, how in the world can a plaintiff, a nonlawyer, who has
alleged to the court and to the United States of America that he is
injured because he is in a majority minority district, the most diverse
district in his State, and he is injured because it was created based
on race? Now say to his lawyer, I want half of the legal fees.
Why it is that the Louisiana legislature would push so hard, some
Members, one of the Members, Mr. Speaker, one of the authors of the
bill to change the district and moot the old redistricting plan is one
of the lawyers in the lawsuit. Want to talk about ethics? Want to talk
about injury and what is really going on in Louisiana? I suspect that
that is not only taking place in Louisiana but it is probably taking
place in other parts of the country.
Let us go to section 3. These are the lawyer's words who withdrew
from the Hays case. These unreasonable demands were initially made by
the plaintiffs shortly after the court's order on December 28, 1993,
setting aside the original congressional district in Louisiana. These
demands are confirmed by letters from plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary
Stokley and a written refusal by counsel to agree to such demand.
Plaintiffs who are pushing right now in the Louisiana legislature
that this plan be adopted so that they can benefit from anywhere from
$4.2 million in legal fees.
The last point of this affidavit I want to point to, Mr. Speaker, is
section 7. The motion by the plaintiffs requesting that the court delay
the determination owed in professional services. Under that they cite
the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, that
law firm is the same law firm that is associated with Kenneth Starr,
the independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation. Kenneth
Starr's law firm, according to this affidavit that I will put in the
Record, are the lawyers of record for these plaintiffs in Louisiana.
Mr. Speaker, I will be quite honest with my colleagues and then I
will yield my time. I do not have a problem with the Supreme Court of
the United States of America deciding the constitutionality of the 4th
Congressional District or any congressional district in this country
because as lawmakers we make the law and, as the court, they interpret
the law. And we have to live with the laws we make and we have to live
with their interpretation.
Until we change the law, we have to live with the interpretation of
the Supreme Court because that is their role. But I am not going to sit
and/or stand idly by and let just a few selfish plaintiffs and a few
greedy lawyers railroads a plan through the Louisiana Legislature and
subject my State to over $4 million in legal fees for personal gain.
This is not a decision of the legislature. This is not a decision of a
three judge panel. This decision, Mr. Speaker, is a decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States of America.
I want to thank the Speaker for allowing us to share in this special
order. I want to thank him for his time.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:
Exhibit ``C''
affidavit
(By Paul Loy Hurd)
BE IT KNOWN that on the 1st day of May, 1995, before the
undersigned witnesses, and Notary Public duly authorized in
the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, personally came
and appeared PAUL LOY HURD, a person of full age of majority,
domiciled in the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana,
Hereinafter referred to as ``Counsel'', who after being duly
sworn did depose and state that:
1. Counsel was originally the lead counsel for the
Plaintiffs in this matter from its initial filing until
December 1994, when this Honorable Court granted Counsel's
motion to withdraw.
2. Counsel withdrew from further representation of the
Plaintiffs in this matter because of the demands by
Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley (i) that the fee
application in this matter to be submitted under 42 U.S.C.
1988 include fictitious ``paralegal'' activities allegedly
performed by the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, and
(ii) that Counsel split with the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and
Gary Stokley, all attorney fees awarded to Counsel in this
litigation and the districting litigation in Texas.
3. These unreasonable demands were initially made by the
Plaintiffs shortly following the Court's order of December
28, 1993 setting aside the original congressional districts
in Louisiana. These demands are confirmed by letters from
Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, and the written
refusal by Counsel to agree to any such demand.
4. The attorneys presently representing the Plaintiffs were
fully appraised of the unreasonable demands being made by
Plaintiffs, including both the demanded fee splitting and the
submittal of unperformed ``paralegal'' activities.
5. This dispute culminated in the Plaintiffs offering to
allow Counsel to argue the appeal in the United States
Supreme Court if he would agree to the financial demands of
the Plaintiffs. Counsel refused these demands again, and was
removed as lead counsel in the fall of 1994.
6. The Plaintiffs are fully aware that Counsel's personal
financial condition has been greatly taxed by the failure of
the Plaintiffs to reimburse Counsel for out of pocket
expenses as previously agreed, and by the continuing delay in
the payment of the attorney fees owed in this matter. With
this full knowledge, the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary
Stokley, have asserted their intention to take all possible
steps to deny to Counsel any compensation in this matter, and
to delay as long as possible the receipt by Counsel of any
compensation to be received in this matter.
7. The Motion by the Plaintiffs (i) requesting that this
Court further delay its determination of the fee owed for the
professional services rendered by Counsel, and (ii)
requesting that Counsel not be allowed to defend his
application before this Court, and (iii) requesting that all
fees paid by the Defendants be paid to Kirkland & Ellis to be
[[Page H3481]]
dispersed at the sole direction of the Plaintiffs, is filed
by the Plaintiffs to effectuate the threats previously made
against Counsel.
THUS DONE AND PASSED on this the 1st day of May, 1995
before the aforesaid witnesses and Notary Public.
Legal Fees Questioned in Remap Case
(By Brad Cooper)
Baton Rouge--Two Lincoln Parish residents who challenged
Louisiana's congressional districts demanded their former
attorney ask a judge to award fees for fictitious legal work,
court documents allege.
That's the allegation Monroe attorneys Paul Hurd levies
against Ray Hays and Gary Stokley of Ruston in an affidavit
filed in federal court in Shreveport.
Hurd represented Stokley, Hays and two others until
December 1994 in the constitutional challenge to Louisiana's
congressional districts.
A three-judge federal panel threw out the districts because
they were rigged to ensure election of a minority candidate.
Stokley and Hays denied Hurd's charge, saying they are not
trying to make a profit from their lawsuit. Stokley called
the charges ``upsetting'' and destructive to his reputation.
The state could be responsible for paying the legal fees in
the case--possibly more than $4 million by some estimates--if
the Legislature approves a new set of congressional
boundaries that eliminates a second district with a majority
of black voters.
A bill that would do that is a step away from final
approval. A Senate committee signed off on a new set of
congressional districts Monday and sent them to the full
Senate to consider.
The affidavit surfaced at the committee meeting.
``It's all about money,'' said state Sen. Dennis Bagneris,
New Orleans. ``According to the affidavit, there has been no
motivation based on . . . who is fairly represented. It's all
about the bucks.''
Hurd, who is seeking about $728,000 for his work, states in
his affidavit that Hays and Stokley wanted him to apply to
the court for fees to cover ``fictitious'' paralegal
expenses.
He also accuses Hays and Stokley of wanting a slice of the
legal fees from the case as well as part of the legal fees
from his lawsuit agianst Texas' congressional districts,
which were thrown out by a lower court becuse they were
racially gerrymandered.
Hurd, who declined comment on Monday, withdrew as counsel
after the four Lincoln Parish plaintiffs enlisted the help of
a high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm.
The plaintiffs said they hired the firm because it was more
experienced in dealing with constitutional issues. Hays said
Hurd's accusations are retaliation for the plaintiffs'
decision to bring another firm to argue the case before the
Supreme Court.
``His feelings are hurt and he got mad,'' Hays said. ``He
is angry and popped all that stuff out.''
Filing a false claim with the federal courts could possibly
lead to perjury charges if it is verified under oath. Or the
applicant could be forced to serve jail time for criminal
contempt of court, court officials said.
The judge also could levy a fine if the application is
found to be fraudulent, court officials said.
Hays and Stokley were confounded by the allegations. They
said Hurd deserves to be paid for the work he did.
``We didn't ask as plaintiffs for any awards, damages or
anything like that. This has not been about money,'' said
Stokley, a sociology professor at Louisiana Tech University.
``Money has never been an issue with me. If it was I
wouldn't have been a teacher,'' Stokley said.
____________________