Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, April 21, 1991                   TAG: 9104210093
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: NEW ORLEANS                                LENGTH: Medium

DREAM OF JUDGESHIP SPURS LAWSUIT

Ortique, a dogged civil rights lawyer even before the days of sit-ins and Freedom Riders in the 1960s, is a 15-year veteran of Louisiana's district courts and has been trying for more than two decades to get to the court of last resort.

Two justices are elected at-large to 10-year terms on the state Supreme Court from a district in which the 57 percent black majority in New Orleans is overwhelmed by three suburban parishes that are predominantly white.

The winners have always been white.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will be asked to decide whether at-large elections illegally dilute minority voting strength in elections for judges, just as they would in elections for any other governmental post.

Two lawsuits filed in Louisiana and Texas on behalf of minority candidates for seats on the bench argue that judicial elections are not exempt from the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The dispute hinges on the question of whether judges are representatives of the people or - as the states argue - servants who are not subject to the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

That argument amounts to sophistry, Ortique said.

"The fact of the matter is that all public officials are servants of the people. All public officials," he said.

"It would appear to me that if the state is going to use voting as the process by which those selections are made, it's not a question of who is a representative or who is not a representative, but, rather, whether the voting process or electoral process is going to be fair."

The arguments arise from lawsuits filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens in Texas and a group of black attorneys in Louisiana.

The Texas case applied to nine urban counties from which 172 of the state's 390 district judges are elected.

The lawsuits ask that single-member districts be established and that all changes in existing election laws be subject to Justice Department approval. The cases have implications for the 41 states that elect judges.

Robert Pugh Sr., who will argue for Louisiana on Monday during the first of three portions of the case, said the legislative and executive branches of the government serve as the agents of the electorate, but judges don't.

The Texas argument turns on a 1982 amendment that adds a test to the Voting Rights Act to determine what dilutes voting strength. Congress intentionally used the word "representative" instead of "candidate" to exempt judicial elections from that portion of the Act, said Renea Hicks, who will argue for Texas.

Ortique said he cannot believe that the states will prevail.

"We are hoping the Supreme Court will declare this obvious violation of any - any - interpretation of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional," he said.

Once that is done, he will get his plans for candidacy off the shelf.