[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.

                          ____________________