Response to Motion to Strike; Proposed Order

    LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY, HILL & LABOON 

A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

ATTORNEYS 1200 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER 

TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER 2200 ROSS AVENUE 
DALLAS, TEXAS 7520! 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 (214) 220-4800 
TELECOPIER (214) 220-4899 

237 PARK AVENUE 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 (713) 226-1200 

(212) 455-2300 
TELECOPIER(212) 986-7281 

TELEX 76-2616 301 CONGRESS AVENUE 

SUITE 1400 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870Il 

(512) 320-4111 

1990 TELECOPIER (512) 320-416! 

TELECOPIER (713) 223-3717 

January 8, 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Gilbert Ganucheau 
Att’n: Eileen Boudin 
Clerk, Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: LUIAC v. Mattox, No. 90-8014 
  

Dear Ms. Boudin: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are the 
original and three copies of Defendant-Appellant Bayoud’s Response 

to Motion to Strike and a Proposed Order. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

— Very truly yours, 
\ 

Vt John L. Hill, Jr. 

JLH/amb 
Enclosures 

wat\lclerk.2 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Vv. NO. 90-8014 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

wn
 

Wn
 

wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Defendants-Appellants. 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE 

George S. Bayoud, Jr., Secretary of State and Defendant- 

Appellant herein, files this, its Response to the Attorney 

General’s Motion to Strike, and would respectfully show the Court 

the following: 

1. The Secretary of State of Texas, George S. Bayoud, Jr. 

("Bayoud"), is a named party to this lawsuit. As such, Secretary 

Bayoud has heretofore been "represented" by the Honorable Jim 

Mattox, Attorney General of the State of Texas. 

2. On or about December 19, 1989, Mr. Mattox publicly 

announced that he had reached an agreement with the Plaintiff in 

this action on an interim election plan (the "Mattox-LULAC-Plan"). 

3, As shown by Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated 

herein by reference, Defendant Bayoud informed Mr. Mattox on 

December 21, 1989 of his intense displeasure with the Attorney 

General’s announcement concerning the Mattox-LULAC Plan, and 

 



  

specifically instructed that he "refrain from entering into such 

plan and that [Mattox] refrain from entering into any other 

settlement or plan without my prior consent.” 

4. Nevertheless, on or about November 21, 1989, Mr. Mattox 

presented to this Honorable Court a proposed interim plan reached 

through private negotiations with Plaintiffs (the "Mattox-LULAC 

Plan"), on behalf of the Attorney General’s office. Notably, the 

Mattox-LULAC Plan was signed by Mr. Mattox solely in his capacity 

as Attorney General, and not as counsel for Defendant Bayoud. 

5. Such action on the part of Mr. Mattox amounts to a clear 

conflict of interest between the Attorney General’s office, the 

lawyer, and the Secretary of State, the client, both of whom are 

named Defendants in this lawsuit. 

6. This Honorable Court entered its Order on January 2, 

1990, enjoining: 

All Defendants and those acting in concert . 
. « from calling, holding, supervising and 
certifying elections for State District Judges 
in Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, 
Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and Midland counties 
under the current at-large scheme. 

i On or about January 4, 1990, Defendant Bayoud informed 

Mr. Mattox of the administrative chaos which would result if this 

Honorable Court’s January 2, 1990 Order were to take effect. 

Additionally, Defendant Bayoud specifically instructed Mr. Mattox 

as his legal counsel to immediately file a Motion to Stay the 

-—D- 

 



  

entire January 2, 1990 Order of this Court and to file an inter- 

locutory appeal on all available issues before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

A copy of this letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein 

as Exhibit "B". 

Be Despite his client’s instructions, Mr. Mattox announced 

publicly on January 4, 1990 his intention to instead seek a 

modification of this Court’s January 2, 1990 Order on the sole 

issue of non-partisan elections. A true and correct copy of this 

press release is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 

Exhibit PC", 

9. That same day, Defendant Bayoud informed Mr. Mattox of 

his engagement of John L. Hill, Jr., as independent outside 

counsel, at no cost to the State. True and correct copies of these 

letters are attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibits "D" 

and "E". 

10. Because time was of the essence, on or about January 5, 

1990, Defendant Bayoud, through John L. Hill, Jr. as independent 

counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal and a Notice of Designation of 

Independent Outside Counsel with this Court, as well as an Emer- 

gency Application For Stay and a Notice of Designation of Indepen- 

dent Outside Counsel with the United States Court of Appeals for 

 



  

the Fifth Circuit. Copies of these documents are attached hereto 

as Exhibits "F-I". 

11. Although Mr. Mattox claims he is representing the 

Secretary of State, Attorney General Mattox has still not filed 

the requested instruments with either Court. Mr. Mattox’s lack of 

firm commitment to file a stay and appeal on behalf of Bayoud 

creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the Secre- 

tary of State’s constitutional and statutory duties and those of 

the Attorney General. Defendant Bayoud has only been able to 

obtain the representation he desires by way of independent outside 

counsel. 

12. As Chief Elections Officer of the State, Defendant Bayoud 

is entrusted with the duty of advising and assisting election 

authorities with regard to the application, operation, and inter- 

pretation of the Election Code and election matters generally. 

There are numerous problems in implementing the judicial elections 

in nine counties in Texas as set out in the order. 

13. Defendant Bayoud is a Constitutional Officer of the 

State. Defendant Bayoud is entitled to adequate representation by 

counsel in this case. A clear conflict of interest exists between 

Mr. Mattox and Defendant Bayoud, and Defendant Bayoud is entitled 

to counsel who can and will serve his best interests with fidelity 

 



  

and devotion. Mr. Mattox’s Motion to Strike should be brought on 

for hearing and ultimately denied. 

14. As was recently set out by the Texas Supreme Court: 

Finally, in the unlikely event that any state 
attorney should fail to adequately represent 
the interest of his client agency, the court 
may deal with such failure in the same manner 
in which it may address such problems with 
other lawyers who practice before it. 

  

PUC v. Cofer, 754 S.W.24 121, 125 (Tex. 1988). 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant-Appellant Bayoud 

respectfully requests this Court enter an Order denying Mr. 

Mattox’s Motion to Strike. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY, HILL 
& LABOON 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: 
JOHN L. HILL, JR. 

  

Jonn 'L. Hill, Jr. 
State Bar No. 00000027 
Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19727600 
3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 226-1200 

ATTORNEYS FOR GEORGE S. BAYOUD, 
JR., SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Response to Motion to Strike has been served upon all counsel of 

-h- 

 



G- 7 

record, by overnight federal express, on this HTL day of January, 

1990. 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: 
IOHN | HILL, JR 

John L. Hill, Jr. 
  

WAT\LULAC. 3 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

Vv. § NO. 90-8014 

§ 
JIM MATTOX, et al., § 

§ 
§ Defendants-Appellants. 

On this day came on to be considered Defendant-Appellant Jim 

Mattox’s Motion to Strike. The Court, after having considered the 

Motion, is of the opinion that said Motion should be denied. 

SIGNED this day of ,. 1990. 
  

  

PRESIDING JUDGE 

WAT\LULAC. 2 

 



  

OE 

ES o N, . at oo 

rd Pow, ’ 

ES vg Nh 

{-% ye xi 
be Sb / 

«Le ¢ - In 

State of Texas 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
Post Office Box 12697, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

December 21, 1989 

HAND-DELIVERED 
  

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Attorney General 

State of Texas 

Supreme Court Building 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: CIVIL ACTION §MO-88-CA-154 

LULAC COUNCIL $4433 ET AL. V. MATTOX ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

  

Dear General Mattox: 

By your public announcement on December 19, 1989, I understand that 

you have reached an agreement on an interim election plan with the 

plaintiffs in the above referenced matter. 

I hereby request that you refrain from entering into such plan and 

that you refrain from entering into any other settlement or plan 

without my prior written consent. 

The implementation of the proposed interim plan would not only be 

totally disruptive to the Texas judiciary, but also extremely 

disruptive to the entire Texas election process. As the State's 

chief elections officer, I have consulted with key county clerks 

and election administrators who have advised me that they 

anticipate severe problems in the implementation of such plan. In 

particular, they point to problems in the areas of ballot 

preparation and the reprogramming of voting systems used for 

tabulation within statutorily-mandated deadlines. 

In addition, I anticipate numerous unanswered legal questions such 

as procedures for filling vacancies, uniformity of filing 

deadlines, and mechanisms concerning the withdrawal of candidates. 

of special concern is compliance with guidelines established by the 

federal overseas voting program for the expeditious mailing of 

absentee ballots to American citizens overseas. 

EXHIBIT A 

 



  

General Mattox 
December 21, 1989 
Page Two 

Furthermore, Texas law entrusts my office with the responsibility 

for registering eligible voters, and enhancing and protecting the 

right of every Texan to vote. This plan, on its face 

disfranchises thousands of voters. For example, in Midland, Ector, 

and Lubbock Counties, voters in certain precincts would be unable 

to vote for any candidate for district judge. 

For these reasons, as well as others that my office would be happy 

to discuss with you at greater length, please refrain from entering 

into your proposed settlement and prepare an immediate appeal of 

the Court's ruling on the merits. 

Sincerely,     
III, Judge, United States District 

Clerk, United States District Court, Western District, 

Midland-Odessa Division 

Ms. Mary F. Keller 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Renea Hicks, 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Javier Guajardo 

Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Mr. William L. Garrett 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando Rios 

Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 

201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 



  

General Mattox 

December 21, 1989 

Page Three 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, 2.0. 

3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. J. Eugene Clements 

Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 

2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

The Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Governor, State of Texas 

The Honorable William P. Hobby 

Lieutenant Governor, State of Texas 

The Honorable Gibson D. Lewis 

Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips 

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas 

 



    

sen” 8Y:LI0DELL, Sapp, 2IVLEY() 
esse ANE 

  

    

1= 5=80 + 1:32PM i LIDDELL: SAPP, 
HARRIS C0. COMM SFL CORR DEPT es 

  

  

YX (Za 
vg 11.20% 
(S18) was 2% 

pg Saves 

FS E s 

Asin, Team 719198 

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

Georges §. Bayoud, Jr. 

SECIETARY OF STATE 

LEY= n123208111 1821 

  

January 4, 1890 

™s BEoporable Jim Mattox 

Attorney Osneral 
tate 02 Texad 
Supreme Court Building 
Austin, Tene 78711 

RE bi 

UNITED BTATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DIGTRICT 
OF TEXAS, XIDLAND-ODZSSA DIVISION 

Desr Ganazral Natitox) 

As I told you in my letter to you of Devemper 21, 

1885, 1 opposed the Jiepsisd agreed order which yeu 

vere negotiating wi the Jisintitis, Azong the 

reasons vars that 4t would be diffienis to mde 

minister; sche citizens may effectively be die- 

enfranchised in elections under the sed piEM) 
and my balief that judicial selerslan is a matter for 

sha Tamas Legislature to address. Mens-the-less, pou 

sudbritted nd the seurt in great 
panad defendant in 

the rufavanced causa, 1 am {matrugtisg yo 
legal counsal to immediately fils & Nabigs for a Stay 

  

froa such Ozdar. 
pecesbear 21st latter costinue to exist undar Judge 
Suatea's Order. 

AS Chisf Elections Officer of the Stats, 2 ax an. 

trusted with the duty of advising and assleting 

election ausherities vith wagard te the application, 

cation, and interpratatise ef the Elactisn Code 

and election matters gensrally. %hare ara numerous 

probisss in izpleaantiag the nonpartisan judicial 

EXHIBIT DB 

  

  

 



sen Bv:L:00ELL Sepp, ZIVLEY(@) 1- 5-80 i 1:33PM | LIDDELL, SAPPUEEYLEY- D123208111 RLY 
plese 1MES HARRIS C0. CO CORR DEPT 
  

The Honorable Jim Natsen 

Page 3 

elections in nine counties in Texas as dst out in the order, A 

neief 1ist of only scas of these problems is es follows: 

(1) which authority is evtually ordering the electicns? 

It appears that Judge Aunten i» ordering the sleosions as his 

ordsr cites on pages 7, item 81 

section 41.001(b)(5) ©¢f the Texas Elactien 

Coda which refers to ‘an elostion held under 

an ordar vf & court or other tribunal....® 

(2) There ars humerous esther quaations revolving escund 

the answst t¢ Question (1) above, ®.¢:, whe gives notice of 

she elestions) whe aushorises she voting systems to be used 

in she slestions) whe ls sha sustodien cf the election re= 

soxrds; end so forth. 

J) Vhieh election precinsts are to be used for the 

selections? 

(4) Who appoints the election judges? 

{§) As the slestions do not fall within the definition 

of a “pr slsction® in Seation 1,00B(i4) of the Blection 

Coda, 48 it to Be assumed thit thers vill Bo #0 filing fees 

id by candidates; no petisicns in lieu of £iling fees, and 

no Judicial petitions as required in gertaln counties? 

(6) Now will the oanvess bv conducted? Undex the 

lection Code; the Sovernor is $v canvass tha returns for @ 

district effive: Under Session $7,012 of she slecsion Code, 

this stats vanvass may not be held earliss shan she 18th day 

atter ths elestion, 4.9., Xay 30. Absentae veting for the 

runoff is se bagin on day 1d ukiar the provisiena of the Rlee- 

tion Coda. There iu net enough sima for tha sanvass and 

prapalstise of balioss for absshses veting to begin for the 

rane J ] 

(7) Whe will bs the absenbes voting clexke ia Botox, 

Lubbock, and Midland Counties as she elestions will net be 

countywida in thoss ecunties? 

(8) What will de Whe prosedure se be wend if 8 judys 

whose ters is mos on she balls én 3980 repighs ox dies? Wiad 

the wn plod sesm ba oa She ballot in May? 

(8) There conid ba a prohlax in preserving ths slecticn 

results from ths primary runoff in that absantea vot for 

feing election vill begin on April 16 while the runoff 1» 

  
   



  

   SENT BY:LIDDELL: SAPP: ZIVLEY ® 1- 5-80 + 1:33PM i LIDDELL: seep, ers D1LILUSI I 11 #LY 

PLS 13i%6 HARRIS CO. COMM BLP & CORR DEFT ee? 

  —— 

The Honorable Jim NatLOX 

Page J 

(10) There is no provisjon in the Order for a filing of 

declaration Qf write-in Sa3sidutyl thus, thsze vill be an 

unlimited number 6f writesin candidates in the alections and 

all wyriteein votes vill have to be counted, 

' (31) Which politicsl subdivision vill the costs of 

conducting she wlections? Harris County will have no ethes 

wlsctions on 5 and the County Clerk estimates the cost for 

the election will be seme 81 million in Harrie County alone. 

There ars numerous other questions and problems with the implemen 

sation of Judge Bunton's Order which I will not list in the inter- 

ost of brevity. 1 am concerned, hovaver, that on Page 4 ef the 

Order Judge Bunton saysi 

... An Agreed Ssttlement was anterad into by and betvesn 

the 2laintifés and Defendants in this matter, but vas not 

approved by some of the Intervenele. 

1 would refer you to my letter of pezanbezr 23, 398), in which 2 

obisctsd to that proposed settliexent and srequested] that you 

relrain from entering into such plan sand that you refrain from 

pntazing into ny OLhAI such sett nt or plan without ay pries 

written consent.” 

As ba ev) 
tayed 

1980, when candidates have besn certified and ballets are Being 

prope the election ip vill have pragaesse beyond a point 

zt vhich it may reasonably 
impor 

tant that the legislature have 3 vahsoneble pariod of time to 

sddress this issues in a spacial session, At a result, I need tO 

xnov whather you will sesk the stay In accordance vith By instruce 

tion, I need your response ins © 

independant counsel, without cost tc the state, in the event I 

vill not abide by my instructions. New counsel would need sdaquate 

time to BOSK 8 Stay DASoTe mid-January 1990, ; 

1 ook forwazd to Reszing from you. 

  

cer Judge tucium D. Bunten, Il Juase, ppited States DiSTIiCY 

Court, western piscricy, Midlana-Uassss Division 

  

  

 



RLV BY:L.DDELL: “@ vo1= 4=80 ; 2:50PM ; sus 5123204111: 2 

      
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

aii MATTOX 
ATTORARY amnsRALl 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: BLNA CHRISTOPHER 
THURSDAY, JAN. 4, 19%0 CR RO} DU SEX 

463-2050 OR 463-2082 

NATTOX SELES CHANGE IN BONTON‘S JUDICIAL ORDER! 
DRGES CLEXEXTE TO CALL IMMEDIATE SPECIAL SESSION 

Attorney General Jix Mattox Thursday announced he is 

filing a motien asking U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton to 

modify his Jan. 2 order on judicial elections in nine of 

Texas’ most populous ceunties. 

In & memorandum being filed with the motion to alter 

the Jan. 2 order, Mattox said the order for the non-partisan 

election of judges in 1990: 

* stepped beyond Texas election laws; would be a 

financial burden to the State and its taxpayers: 

* would have a depressive effect on minority voter 

turnout: 

* and should be worked out by the state legislature, a 

majority of which signed onto a jeint proposal by Mattox and 

ninority plaintiffs that was submitted to the court before 

its Jan. 3 order. 

The Attorney General also sald that Gov. Bill Clements 

should igppediately call a special legislative session to 

dea: with the judicial matter, as well as schoel finance 

Tefornm. “The clock has been ticking away while Bill 

Clements twiddled his thumbs," Mattox said. "When Judcas 

Bunton ruled in Novenber, I wrote the governor asking him to 

add judicial elections to the workers compensation session. 

He did not do sc. Instead, he went to visit Judge Bunton, 

and the upshot of that visit was to get the deadlines moved 

up on the State. Nov, Clenents says he will call a special 

session -- someday. 

=MORR- 

BIN/AGS=RI00  SUFREME ODURT BUILDING AUNTIN, TEXAN THTII-S5J48 

EXHBIT C 

 



  

RCV BY:L.DDELL sls vo1= 4=80 ¢ 2:51PM suf) 912320411158 5 

  

MATTOX 
add 1-1-1 

"The time is now -- not in a month, not this spring -- 
but now,® 

In the msnorandun, Mattox said: 

"Straightforwardly stated, this part of the court’s 

order (electing 1185 judges in nine counties through nen- 

partisan selections) is not 2 judicial remedy; it is judicial 
reform. The remedial garb ocannot disguise its reform 
character. It cannot be squared with the court’s 
determination that ‘party affiliation is simply irrelevant 

under the controlling law.’ (Bunton’s Finding of Fact No. 

43: Nov. 8, 1989) 
"The court has given no explanation based in law or 

facts relevant to this case for rejecting century-old state 

election lav. It has made no factual findings on the issue: 

it has expressed no legal conclusions on it; and it has 

conducted no evidentiary hearing eon (it. It has simply 
announced it. However broad the court’s equitable powers 
may be, they neither encompass nor justify what the court 

has done. 

""While this forum (the court) is indisputably a proper 
one to resolve whether the rights of minority voters are 

being protected, it is just as indisputably the wrong one 

for debating wheather stata judges should be elected in nen- 

partisan elections. The Texas legislature and the people of 

Texas, not this court, are the proper judges ef that 

debate.” : 

Nattox’s memorandum noted that "there are massive gaps 

between the court’s January 2 directive to conduct non- 

partisan judicial elections in 19290 and the statutory 

framevork set forth in the Texas Election Code for 

conducting elections.” 

For axanmpla, Mattox said, the order fails te designate 

the officials responsible for conducting the election; 

including giving notice of tha election, to order alection 

supplies, to print the ballots, to appoint election judges 

«~MORE= 

 



  

RCV 8Y:L:DDEuLs ily i 1= 4=30 ; 2:51PM : sus) §123204111:8 4 

% K MATTOX 
: add 2-2-2 

  

  

and olerks for the polling places, to conduct absentee 

voting, and to canvass the election returns. 

"The court’s order is totally silent on these and many 

other integral matters of conducting the election,” Mattox 
said. "This would be a confusing and disruptive electoral 

process for all tha votars, including tha minority voters te 

who the court was supposed to grant relief.” 

Also, Mattox said, Bunten’s Jan. 2 ordar says not one 

word about candidate filing fees. Under the Texas Election 
Code, candidates pay their filing fees to the Democratic or 
Republican parties, depending on whether they are running as 

Daencorats or Republicans. There is ne mechanism in the law 

for tiling fees in non-partisan elections such as Bunton 
ordered. y 

The Secretary of State estimates that conducting 1550 
non-partisan elections in May and June, as Bunton ordered, 

will cost approximately $2 to $3 million more than if 
elections were taking place under the normal primary systen. 

“This iz a financial burden that the taxpayers of Texas 

sizply ¢o not need,” Mattox said. "It’s not fair to then, 
and it does nothing to remedy the minority voting problems 

that the court found. 

"In fact, the non-partisan method wes opposed by the 

plaintiffs in this case. Such a method has been widely 
recognized as harmful to uinority voters because cof the 

disproportionately depressive effect on minority voter 

turnout. Simply put, the Voting Rignts Act, under which 

Bunton ruled, provides nc legal Justification for this 

method of electing judges.” 

The memorandum alsc states: "The court’s directive to 

conduct non-partisan district judge elections in 1990 unduly 

and unnecessarily intrudes into a metter lying within the 

state legislature’s domain. Through his submittal of a 

joint motion urging adoption of the proposed interim plan, 

the Attorney General on bahalf of the State of Texas 

harnonized as much as possible the ocourt’s November & 

=MORE~- 

 



  

RCV BY LIDDELL siif)e vo 1= 4-50 ¢ 2:52PM sss) §123204111:8 5 

- TEITAVA —_ ? : Sar RE 

add 3-3-3 
  

  

mandate to revise the state electoral system to protect 
minority voting rights with long-established state policies 
expressed in fundamental state law." 

Mattox said that majorities of both the Senate and 
House signed onto the proposal that Mattox and the 
plaintiffs submitted to Bunton. That propesal would have 
Vtreeedi: tte 211ing deadline to January 12, allowed 1990 
elections to move forvard with elections by 3egislative, 
county comnissioner or justice of the peace districts in the 
nine counties (districts included in Bunton’s Jan. 2 order 
for non-partisan elections) and would have been the least 
radical and disruptive manner in whieh to ensure ninericy 
voting rights until the legislature adopts a permanent plan. 

Mattox’s memorandum to Bunton, being filed Thursday 
afterncon in federal court in Midland, also mentions an 
elternative to the non-partisan method of electing judges 
ordered by Bunton. While still presenting substantial 
difficulties and not being recommended by Mattox, the 
nexorandum says, cross-filing is an alternative that the 
court coyld consider. : 

Zarlier incaranations of state election law allowed 
cross-£iling in which candidates could file with either or 
both political parties to appear on prizary ballots. If =a 
candidate cross-filed, the filing fee would be split between 
the two political parties. candidates who cross-filed would 
appear cn both party ballets in the March primaries, and any 

run-off would occur in the November general election. 

: =30=- 

 



SCV 3v:LIDCELL, s@ve ik i SRST gS @.... $123204111:8 2 

  
  

  

  

Asstin. Texas 78711.2080 

Disclosure Filings Section 
P.C. Box ITO 
413 463-5704 

Austin, Texas 78711-2070 

CATA SIRVYICES 

Austin, Texas 74711-2887 

SUPPORT SIRVICES 
DIVIRON 
Frasaca! Nssspemen 
7.0. Bas 

Ig 463-3680 
Auntin. Texas 78711-2887 

Staff Services 
P.O. Box 128% 
$12 463.5600 

Ausin, Texas 79701-2887 

STATUTORY FILINGS 
DIVISION 
Corporation 
P.O. Box 13897 
$12 463-5558 
Ausin, Teras 78711-3697 

Suatutory Documents 
FO. Box 12887 
$12 443.3454 

Austin, Texas 707112887 

Teast Register 
PO. Box 13824 
§.2 463-8561 
dustin, Texas 78711-3824 

Usiforn Commercial Code 
7.0. Box 319) 
$13 475-3708 
Austin, Texas T8711.3193 

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 
  

January 4, 1990 

The Honorable Jin Mattox 
Attorney General 
Stata of Texas 
supreme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

INLAC COUNCIL #4434 ET AL, V, MATTOX ET AL. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WRSTERN DISTRICT OF 
TEXAS, MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

Dear General Mattox: 

In a telephone conversation with Renea Hicks of your 
office this morning, I asked that he consult with you and 
let me know if you were filing a Motien for Stay of the 
referenced Order by Judge Lucius D. Bunton, III. I had 
previously notified you, by letter of December 21, 1985 
of my opposition to your proposed agreed plan. I also had 
delivered to your office at noon today, a letter contain- 
ing my instruction to you as my Legal Counsel to immedi- 
ately file a stay and an interlocutory appeal on all 
available issues from such Order. It is nov cbvicus from 
your rexarks at your 1:30 p.n., press conference today that 
you have no intention of filing a Motion for Stay or 
Interlocutory Appeal in accordance with ny instructions. 

Please be advised that because of your refusal to repre- 
sent me in accordance with ny instructions given to you as 
your client in this matter, I az engaging outside counsel 
at no cost to the State of Texas. Former Secretary of 
State, Attorney Genaral, and Chief Justice of the Texas 
Supreme Court, Judge John Hill has agreed to represent ne 
as Secretary of State in this matter. Judge Rill will be 
in contact vith your office and will be filing the ap- 
propriate documents with the Court to substitute as my 
counsal. . 

# erely, 

Fi ot ta of 

GEB:TR/bl/1trs 

An Lqua! Opportuaity Employer 

EXHIBIT D  



    

State of Texas 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
Post Office Box 12697, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

January 4, 1990 

The Honorable John Hill 
Lidell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill and LaBoon 
301 Congress, Suite 1400 
Austin, Texas 78701 

RE: CIVIL ACTION #MO-88-CA-154 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434 ET AL. V. MATTOX ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

  

Dear Judge Hill: 

In accordance with our earlier conversations, you are hereby authorized to 
represent me in the above styled and numbered cause. I have, today, notified 

Attorney General Mattox of my decision in this regard. 

I particularly appreciate you doing this on a pro bono basis. 

Again, thank you for your able assistance in representing the interests of the 
electorate of the State of Texas. 

Sincerely, 

  

EXHIBIT R 

 



   Smt wre 

SENT ‘BY: LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY 

oS —— 

CX 8-80 i 8:57AM 3 5124 - 7132234518:% © 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DIVISION OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

RECEIVED 
Jan 051990 

DISTRICT foun 
4a 'S OFFI 

Bl 
  LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN § By, 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., § 

Plaintiffs, : 

v. : NO. MO. 8B-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. : 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that Defendant George S 

Secretary of State and Defendant herein appeals 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit fre 

Order of January 2, 

CARTERG\BAYOUDO? 

1990. 

INDEPENDENT COUN 

EXHIBIT 

‘Liddell, Sapp, 2Z 

Respectfully sub 

< Moe 

. Bayoud, Jr., 

ko the United 

m the Court’s 

hitted, 

br 
  

hn 1. Hill, Or 
tate Bar No. 00 

Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Comme 
Houston, Texas 
(713) 226-1200 

DEFENDANT GEORGE 
SECRETARY OF STA 

7 J 

00027 

727600 
ivley, 

rce Tower 
77002 

SEL FOR 
5. BAYOUD, JR., 
TE   
 



   SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C2 8-80 7 9:58AM 5124 1- 

IF F VICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of 
instrument was served by certified mail, return rece 
to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the 
of Civil Procedure this £ day of January, 1990. 

7182234518:&8 7 

the foregoing 
ipt requested, 
Federal Rules 

22nd, 
  

John L. Hill, Jr 

CARTERG\JLE\BAYOUDO3 

  
 



   SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY "3 8-90 : 9:53AM 3 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND~ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN § 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., § 

Plaintiffs, : 

Ve : NO. MO-E& 

JIM MATTOX, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF INDEPENDE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE LUCIUS D. BUNTON: 

NOW COMES George S. Bayoud, Jr., ("Bayoud") 

state and Defendant herein, and files this Notice 

of Independent Cennder th the above=-styled and numb 

would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. 

Defendant Bayoud has heretofore informed hi 

record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General 

Texas, hat He does not support the Mattox/LULAC 1 

the interim plan adopted by the Court, does not 

correct legal principles applicable to this case ha 

by the Court. Further, Defendant Bayoud has request 

to immediately file an Emergency Application fo! 

Interlocutory Appeal of this Court’s January 2, 1990 

No. MO-88-CA-154 (W.D.Tex.) because time is of the « 

Court’s order would create chaos in the administrati 

EXHIBIT Gr 

sii 

RECEIVED 
Joy 09 1990 

1U. 8. DISTRICT COURT 
CLERK'S OFFICE 

Boom 

0 
  

8-CA-154 

NT CCUNSEL 

| Secretary of 

of Designation 

red cause, and 

s attorney of 

pf the State of 

nterim Plan or 

bgree that the 

re been applied 

ted Jim Mattox 

+r Stay and an 

Order in Cause 

essence and the 

on of the Texas   
  

7132234519 +F% Z 

Deputy



   

  

7132234519:% 3 512 SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY @- 8-80 : 8:54AM ; 

tponsibility of election laws which administration is the legal res 

Defendant Bayoud as Secretary of State. | 

II. 

Attorney General Mattox refuses to represen 

State Bayoud’s legitimate interest, views. and desi 

adversary manner, is not affording Secretary of St 

same diligent and faithful representation to whic   
entitled, is failing to adequately represent his cli 

t Secretary of 

res in a truly 

ate Bayoud the 

th a client is 

nt’s interests 

herein, has made agreements without his client’g knowledge or 

consent, has failed to inform Bayoud of important deyelopments, has 

engaged in private negotiations with the Plaintiff 

compromises and agreements unacceptable to Bayoud, 

exists a conflict of interest between Bayoud, ti 

‘Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has breached his 

and instructions and is substituting his personal \ 

of his client to placate Plaintiff’s wishes and a 

political agenda. 

ITI. 

Defendant Bayoud has previously informed the At 

in writing of his intent to engage John L. Hill, J 

sapp, zZivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas Commerce 1 

Texas 77002, as his independent counsel, at no cost 

so as to protect Defendant Bayoud’s right to legal 

that will maintain a truly adversarial relationsh 

parties and guarantee that Secretary Bayoud’s legal 

fairly and energetically and independently carried 

Exhibit A attached hereto.) 

resulting in 

and there thus 

je client, and 

client's trust 

iews for those 

ivance his own 

'torney General 

r. of Liddell, 

ower, Houston, 

to the State, 

representation 

Lp between the 

positions are 

forward. (See   
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY @- 8-80 3 9:55AM 512 - 11322340 19:8 4 

IV. 

Defendant Bayoud hereby notifies this Honorable Court of the 

designation of John L. Hill, Jr. as his independent ¢ounsel in this 

cause to carry forward his legal positions as above| described. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ohn L. Hill, Jr. = ~ ° 
State Bar No. 00000027 
Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19727600 
Liddell, Sapp, Zliviey, 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 226-1200 
INDEPENDENT COUNBEL FOR 
DEFENDANT GEORGE i BAYOUD, JR., 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

  

Vv 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofl the foregoing 
instrument was served by certified mail, return recelipt requested, 
to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the| Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure this _. day of January, 1990. 

£ Jed 
John L. Hill, Jr 
  

CARTIRG\JLE\BAYOUDOL 

   



   

  

SENT" BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY 
RCV 8v:LIDCELL/ § 

   
   
I Pol= 4-80 ¢ 2:24PM $1246358) 3 

5124) 17 — 8-90 : 9:56AM 3 

$123204111:8 2 

T1342434019»% DO 

      

  

  

oY de 
. fia Porth 

Austin, Teas 76711-3607 

my peo zane 
13 46)-36% 
Asin. Temas 70711.2060 

Disclosure Filings Section 
PC. Box (OT 
$12 463-5704 
Austin, Texas 76711.20% 

$13 &43. 

313 463-3600 

Austin. Texas 787112887 

Staff Servicm 
?.0. box 1238%7 
$12 463.8600 
Ausin, Texas 78711-2887 

STATUTORY NLINGS 
DIVISION 
Corporations 
P.O. Bok 13677 
512 463-5555 
Ausin, Terms 78711-3607 

412 463.3454 . 
Austin, Texas 727113887 

Texst Register 
PO. box !3524 
3.2 63-136) 
Austin, Texas T8711.3824 

Astin, Tess 78711-8193 

  

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATI 

George S. Bayou), Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

| |
 

  

January 4, 1890 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 
Attorney General 
Stats of Taxas 
suprsma Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: - - - 

UNITED STATIS DISTRICT COURT, 
TEXAS, MIDLAND=-ODESSA DIVISION 

     
    

   

IT AL. 
STEEN DISTRICT OF 

Dear General Mattox: 

In a telephone conversatien with Rinea Hicks of your 
office this morning, I asked that he consult with you and 
let me know if you were girly a Motien for Stay of the 
referenced Order Judge Lucius D. ljunten, III. I had 
previously notified you, by letter off December 21, 1889 
Oz zy opposition to your proposed agregd plan. I alse had 
delivered to your office at noon teday|, a lotter centain- 
ing my instruction to you as my legal| Counsel to immedi- 
ataly file a stay and an interlocutjory appeal eon all 
available issues from such Order. 1It |is nov cbvious from 
your reaarks at your 1:30 p.m. press cnference today that 
you have no intentien of 2iling a lotion for Stay or 
Interlocutory Appeal in accordance with my instructions. 

Please be advised that becauss of youl refusal to rapre- 
sent me in accordance with ny instructions given tec you as 
your client in this matter, I am engaging otitside counsel 
at no cost to the State of Texas. [former Secratary of 
State, Attorney General, and Chief Nistice of the Texas 
Supreme Court, Judge John Eill has agreed to represent me 
as Satretary of State in this matter. | Judga Hill vill be 
in contact with yeur office and willl be filing the ap- 
probzisse docuzcnts with the Court tp substitute as =my 
counsel. ; 

  

EXHIBIT A 

GS31TR/bl/1trs 

An Lqual Opporeualty Employer 

  
 



  

t HOLLOMV 1D vy» 1 L SENT BY:LIDDELL., SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8~90 ;10:iUZAM i a 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIPTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. NO. 
  

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

0
 

CO
 

LO
 

CO
 

to
) 

Ch
 

LO
 

th
) 

LO
) 

Oy
 

Defendants-Appellants. 

SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE BAYOUD'S 
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY 

  

  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Defendant, Secretary of State George Bayoud, mo 

for entry of an immediate stay of an Order ent 

Eon. Lucius D. Bunton in Cause No. MO-88-CA-154 (W 

January 2, 1990, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a) (1; 

and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procec 

following reasons: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
  

l. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appell: 

provides that this Emergency Application for Stay me 

this Court because application to the District 

practicable in this case. The District Court has a. 

all applications for stay by the Defendant and Interv 

case. Accordingly, further applications for stay to 

Court would be a futile act and impracticable withi: 

of Rule 8(a). 

EXHIBIT. H 

yes the Court 

ered by the 

De. Tex.) On 

and 1292(b) 

ure, for the 

te Procedure 

ly be made to 

jour: is not 

ready denied 

pnors in this 

the District 

hn the meaning   
 



    

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY &- 8-90 10:03AM 21.) |= 1 1822340191410 

2. Additionally, this Emergency Application fof Stay adopts 

and is made in support of the Emergency Application f¢r Stay which 

was filed by Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant Dallas Cojnty District 

Judce F. Harold Entz ("Entz Application for Stay"), apd Defendant- 

Intervenor-Appellant Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood 

("Wcod Application for Stay") in this proceeding [on or about 

January 3, 1990. To allow the expeditious filing of this 

Application, all references to Court Documents jin Bayoud's 

application for Stay may be found in the Entz Applicatfion for Stay, 

and do not independently accompany this Application). Secretary 

Bayoud will send all referenced documents under sepaftate cover as 4 

soon as possible. 

3. Further, this Emergency Application €£pr Stay is 

independently made pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure on behalf of Bayoud. 

4. This emergency stay is requested in order [to prevent a 

chaotic condition being created within the judiciary|of the State 

of Texas prior to this Court's having an opportunity fo review the 

District Court's Order. 

5S. Plaintiffs in this action seek to apply Seckion 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, to the district cpurts of nine 

urban counties in Texas. Those nine counties include Harris, 

Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Midland, Jefferson, Lubbock, and 

Ector Counties. Plaintiffs claimed that county-wide, partisan 

elections of judges in those counties unlawfully diluted the voting   
 



    

  

SENT BY:LIDDELL: SAPP, ZIVLEY Cl 8=90 10:03AM + EE XN i 1- 1 1OLLOMV IT I™ I &4 

viuhts of minority voters and that the system ¢f county-wide 

elections was unconstitutionally discriminatory. 

6. George Bayoud is a Defendant herein, and gs Secretary of 

State of Texas is the chief election officer of Texys charged with 

the legal duty of administrating the election laws of Texas. 

7. Trial of Plaintiffs’ claims was held during the week of 

September 18, 1989. On November 8, 1989, the district court 

entered an Order finding in favor of Plaintiffs in all nine 

counties (the "November Order," see Exhibit C of Erjtz Application 

for Stay), though also finding that Texas’ system jof county-wide 

elections does not violate the constitution. In jaddressing the 

numerous factual and legal defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims, although 

ruling for Plaintiffs, the district court noted that the 

application of the Voting Rights Act to judicial el¢ctions "is not 

a sphere of icy certainty." (See Exhibit C gt 93 of Entz 

Application for Stay). 

8. The November Order requested the Governor pf Texas to add 

the issue of judicial election to the agenda fqr the special 

session of the Texas Legislature scheduled to afidress workers 

compensation reform: the November Order indicated thpt the district 

court would consider interim relief if no state-sponporec plan were 

presented by January 3, 1990, the filing deadling¢ for the 1990 

elections. On December 11, 1989, Governor Clements and counsel for 

the parties met with the District Court, at the Govelnor’s request. 

The Governor advised the District Court that it woulf be impossible 

for the State of Texas to propose a plan before| January 3 and 

-F   
 



  

7132234519:810 oY TH SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY @- 8-90 10:04AM 3 

  

requested the District Court to allow more time for 

consider a remedy, while simultaneously permitting 

appeal of the November Order. 

Application for Stay). 

9g. 

time and instead solicited submission of "interim plan 

a framework for holding the 1990 Texas judicial el 

December 21, 1989, Plaintiffs and the Attorney Gene 

objection of all other individual State Defendants, 

E-3, G of Entz Application for Stay) submitted a proj 

plan (the "Mattox-LULAC Plan," see Exhibit E-2 of Ent 

for Stay) for the 1990 elections. Essentially, the 

Plan assigns judicial spots to state legislative or 

in a form of quasi-single member districts. It re 

wide jurisdiction and venue, but restricts voting to 

the district. 

number of legislative districts, than the 

districts would get "extra" judges; 

minority populations were allocated the "extra" ju 

Additionally, the Mattox-LULAC plan effectively me 

system of judicial specialization through civil, crim 

and juvenile courts and the continuity of cour 

permitting the presiding administrative judge for e 

assign specializations and dockets to winning candida 

election. 
  

(See Exhibit H at 

The District Court did not agree to permi 

Because the number of judicial positio 

some 

the districts 

the state to 

an expedited 

+3 of Ente 

t additional 

5" tc provide 

pctions. On 

lal (over the 

see Exhibits 

hosed interim 

zp Application 

Mattox-LULAC 

JP districts 

tains county- 

boters within 

ns is greater 

legislative 

with higher 

dicial seats. 

ngles Texas' 

inal, family, 

tf dockets by 

Ach county to 

tes after the 
    
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 i10:UDAM > fei 

10. On January 2, 1990, the district court enter 

modified form of the Mattox-LULAC Plan (the "January 

Exhibit M of Patz Application for Stay). Most signifi 

having ruled (improperly) that the partisan natu: 

judicial elections was irrelevant to a Voting Rights A 

Exhibit C at 88-89 of Entz Application for Stay), the . 

abolishes partisan judicial elections in Texas, calli 

partisan general election on May 5 with a runoff on . 

The Order preserves the aspect of the Mattox-LUL! 

requires candidates to for numbered run "places" 

election districts; only after the election 

"Administrative Judge" determine whether the voters 

a judge of a civil, criminal, family or juvenile court 

this further confuses voters in their already-difficu 

make an informed choice between judicial candidates, s 

legal experience in a particular area is of questional 

to a voter given that no one will know until after 

what type of bench the prevailing candidate will occ! 

11. Secretary of State George Bayoud had previou 

the district court to certify its November Order for 

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and withhold any i 

pending resolution of that appeal. 

Application for Stay). 

granted the request to certify the November Order for 

Appeal and denied all requests for stay (see Exhibit B 

Application for Stay) and called for its interim 

-5- 

(See Exhibit 

In its January Order, the di 

{ 1QLLO%V I Dre | VL 

ed a slightly 

Order," see 

cantly, after 

e of Texas 

ct claim (see 

January Order 

hg fcr a non- 

june 2, 1990. 

\C Plan that 

in special 

will the 

have elected 

. Of course, 

Lt efforts to 

ince now even 

ple relevance 

the election 

DY 

sly requested 

interlocutory 

nterim order 

D of Entz 

strict court 

Interlocutory 

at £8 of Ent>z 

plan to take    



    

  

SENT. BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C3 8-90 s10:UBAM 0 a) r- 1 19LCOaV 101m id 

immediate effect. On January 5, 1990, George Bayopd filed his 

Notice of Appeal from the January Order. In view off the January 

Order, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal and motion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1l). 

12. Aside from the substantive errors in the Jgnuary Order, 

the Order is insufferably insensitive to the complexifies of Texas 

election procedures. 

In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is 
entitled to and should consider the proximity of a 

forthcoming election and the mechanics and compllexities 
of state election laws, and should act and relly upon 
general equitable principles. With respect to the timing 

of relief, a court can reasonably endeavor to pgvoid a 

disruption of the election process which might result 

from requiring precipitate changes that cou.d make 

unreasonable Or embarrassing demands on a State in 

adjusting to the requirements of the court's deqree. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964) (emphasis gdded, quoted 
  

in Chisom v. Roamer, 853 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir.|1988)). As 
  

indicated in the objections to the Mattox-LULAC Pjan from the 

Secretary of State (see Exhibit G-1 of Entz Applicati¢n for Stay), 

the January Order fails to consider the complexitigs of Texas’ 

electoral system. Further, the January Order fails t¢ account for 

the logistical requirements of closing candidate filing enough 

ahead of the election to permit ballot preparation jand absentee 

voting; it fails to provide for time or costs in publishing notice 

of the election; it fails to provide for sufficient time for a 

canvass of the returns before the runoff. The Janupry Order is 

plainly a "precipitate change[ that [w]ould make [unreasonable 

[and] embarrassing demands on a State in adjusting to the 

requirements of the court's decree." These subgtantive and 

—fy   
 



   SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY (I 8-90 10:07AM orf | I= 1 1922042 101#10 

procedural arguments and others showing the error ip the January 

Order are stated more fully in Judge Entz's Objections and Motion 

for Stay (Exhibit F of Entz Application for Stay), and his Post- 

Trial Brief, which George Bayoud incorporates by reference. 

13. Finally, the January Order is in error becguse >t failed 

to give the State of Texas a reasonable opportunity to consider 

remedies. As the Ceveenor noted in the December 11 meeting and in 

his letter (see Exhibit G-3 of Entz Application for Stay) the 

district court did not permit sufficient time £pr the Texas 

legislature to consider judicial selection. As the Court is well 

aware, in the fall special session the Texas legislature was 

occupied with the culmination of a four-year effort to reform the 

Texas workers compensation system, and will be similjarly involved 

this spring with an earlier judicially-required overhaul of public 

school financing. Additionally, as the Governor noted, providing 

a reasonable time for the legislature to consider th issue would 

concurrently give this Court time to review the underlying 

liability findings in the November Order to detetmine whether 

destruction of the Texas judicial system is really necessary. 

14. The risk of irreparable harm here is dramatiic. Adoption 

of an interim remedy in this action through requiring a form of 

single member judicial districts will inevitably resylt in massive 

turnover in judicial personnel; some judges will detegrmine that it 

is rot worth the effort for them to struggle for a flour-year term 

under circumstances that will change. If the ruling on liability 

is subsequently overturned by this Court, as George Eayoud is 

-7-   
 



  

tIOLLOHY IU YH ID SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY Cn 8-90 310:UBAM 

  

confident it will be, there is no way to unde the |i 

the institution of the judiciary of the State of Te 

obviously take place in the interim. 

15. Essentially for the same reasons, 

supports a stay. George Bayoud calls the Court's att 

opinions in Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 
  

  

v. Mattox, No. 89-6226 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 19839), & 

Mattox, No. 89-6226 (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 1990). 

the only other instances known to Secretary Bayoud 

issue presented here has been addressed. 

Court found that a stay was proper. 

greater force here. The degree of disruption t 

coordinate branches of the sovereign state government 

16. 

would result if a stay were not entered, 

standard of likelihood of success on the merits is 

Ruis v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981) 
  

only present a substantial case on the merits when a 

questions is involved and show that the balance of ec 

heavily in favor of granting a stay"). Although 

certainly believes that the arguments in this mo 

incorporated trial court pleadings demonstrate a 

success, it seems beyond question that, at minimum, 

a substantial case on the merits," and thus a stay i 

the pu 

Those 

In both in 

The same reaso 

Considering the massive impact on the State 

a lowe 

nstability to 

kas that will 

plic interest 

ention to its 

1988), Rangel 

nd Rangel v. 
  

opinions are 

in which the 

stances, this 

ns apply with 

¢ one of the 

is egregious. 

of Texas that 

r than usual 

appropriate. 

("movant need 

serious legal 

uities weighs 

George Bayoud 

tion and the 

likelihood of 

they “present 

s justified.   
 



    

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY @- 8-90 10:08AM 3 size 7132234519 :%¢U 

NEED FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF 
  

17. In order to preserve the regularity and continuity of 

judicial elections, George Bayoud respectfully requests immediate 

relief, and requests that hearing of this motion be had by 

telephone conference call at the earliest possiblel opportunity   
given the inconsistency between the terms of the January Order and 

the schedule for current judicial election procedures under state 

law. 

18. The deadline for filing for office under ¢urrent Texas 

law was January 2, 1989. The District Court waited until that very 

day to enter its interim plan. This last minute older fails to 

"consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics 

and complexities of state election laws," Reynolds v.| Sims, supra, 
  

and will cause severe and unfair consequences unless imrediately 

stayed. In particular, the January Order comes so [close to the 

long-scheduled March 13 primaries that if it is not immediately 

stayed, the 1990 judicial elections will have been irremediably 

disrupted. | 

19. Initially, unless this Court takes actior] to stay the 

January Order before January 12, it will be difficult for judicial 

positions to be included in the March 13 primaries). State law 

permits AbReates voting to commence sixty days before the election. 

Tax. Elec. Code Ann. § 84.007. In order to have ballots prepared 

in time for the election and absentee voting, party| chairmen are 

required to certify to the Secretary of State the list of properly 

filed and qualified candidates sixty days before the election. 

i :   
 



    

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY QO 8-90 10:10AM ; 21.4 |= T182234D 10182 | 

This permits the Secretary of State to provide the names to the 

ballot printers in time for the election and absentee poting. This 

year, the date for certification of candidates is Janupry 12, 1990. 

See 1 Tex. Adm. Code § 81.113 (proposed at 14 Tex}; Reg. 5398, 

adopted at 14 Tex. Reg. 6075). Thus, if this Court] is going to 

issue a stay in order to prevent unnecessary disruption of the 

existing judicial election system, it must act beforg¢ January 12. 
  

  

  

20, Additionally, if judicial candidates acting in reliance 

upon the January Order withdraw their filing under| the current 

system and refile under the terms of the January Order, they will 

be unable to refile if a stay is granted, because the|deadline for 

filing under the existing system has passed. Every day that passes 

while the January Order is in effect increases the risk that 

candidates will become ineligible for this reason. 

21. Finally, the realities of political campaigns require 

that candidates have some reasonable time to campaign for office. 

The March 13 primary is only some ten weeks away. | If judicial 

candidates are to be on the ballot for the March 13 primary, they 

need time to appeal to the voters, solicit sypport, seek 

endorsements, prepare and run advertisements, crganize the 

precincts, and take all of the other steps that are entailed in the 

political process. 

22. As stated in the letter from Secretary of [State Bayoud 

to the district court (Exhibit H-1 of Entz Application for Stay and 

Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto), the logistijcal problems 

created for the State of Texas in trying to implement the January 

«10~-   
 



a SENT. BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C 8—90 10:11AM 

order are significant in and of themselves. In its ur 

to enter some kind of interim order, the district cour! 

failed to acknowledge the magnitude of the disruption 

As this Court state in Chisom: 

Our analysis begins with the staunch admenit: 
a federal court should jealously guard and sparir 
its awesome powers to ignore or brush aside long-s 
state constitutional provisions, statutes, and prez 
There can be no doubt that under the Supremacy 
federal courts do and indeed must have this authc 
our unique form of government. It is the use 
power that must be maintained in the balance, a 

which is more delicate than usual when a state's 
process is involved. 

Chisom, supra, 853 F.2d at 1189 (footnote omitted). 
  

here, given the district court's failure to heed 

staunch admonition, this Court should stay the dist 

intemperate order, as it did in Chisom and Rangel. 

WHEREFORE, George Bayoud requests that this Cour 

District Court's Order enjoining the election of 

district judges under the present system in the 

counties at issue in this suit, that it stay the imple 

the Interim Plan adopted by the District Court, and 

all furcher, proceedings 
ae 

limitation the promulgation or implementation of any o 
ee meni a EE mines BASIE IG OF A 

plan, pending appeal of the District Court's Memorandu 

the District Court, inclu 
i rp. 

Ee 

ET 

Order of November 8, 1989 as amended. 

f 1OLLORV ID ILL 

seemly haste 

t has plainly 

it proposes. 

on that 
gly use 
tanding 
ctices. 
Clause, 
rity in 
pf this 
balance 
udicial 

Similarly, 

khis Court's 

rict court's 

t vacate the 

rexas' state 

nine target 

mentation of 

that it stay 

ding without 

ther remedial 
—— 

mn Opinion and    



    

  

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 10:12AM a) 3 fond 11042040 101#L0 

Respectfully subnmjitted, 
; / 

By: il nd lity l- 
vd i / pohn L. HilY, Jr. 

/ /State Bar No. 00(00027 
/ Andy Taylor 

State Bar No. 19727600 
Liddell, Sapp, Zijvley, 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Commerice Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 226-1200 ° 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR 
DEFENDANT GEORGE ۤ|. BAYQUD, JR., 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of [the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the |Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure this 4S day of January, 1990. 

J si L. Bill, JT. JV 

  

  

{:\usars\carterg\jlh\bayoud04 

-12~   
 



   

  

EXECUTIVE DIVISION 
P.O. Bom 12457 
Austin, Team 71711-2697 
(312) 483-5001 

ELECTIONS MM'VISION 

£0. Ba 12060 
Austin, Texas 78711-2060 
(312) 483-3¢% 

Disclose Filings 
FO. Bax 13200 
Austin, Texas T17}1.2070 
(912) 463-2704 

DATA SERVICES 
DIVISION 
PO. Ba 123% 
Austin, Temes 707(1-3487 
($12) 463.8609 

SUPPORT SERVICES 
DIVISION 
Flmaneial nem 
PO Bx 
Auttin, Texas 71711-2887 
(512) 463-3600 

Corpoetions 
PO. Box 13687 
Austin, Texss 78711-3657 
(512) 443-5883 

Siasory Domancrs 
PO. Bx 12887 

in, Texas 78711:3387 
(S12) 463-5654 

Teas: Ragiater 
P.O. Bex 13834 
Aun. Teas 78711-3824 
C212) 488-338] 

Uniform Commercial Cods 
PO. Bx 1319) 
Austin, Texas 78711-3193 

($13) €75-3708 

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 10:12AM 

    

{ OLAV JY IVIL 

   
SY 

  

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 
George S. Bayoud, Jr. 

SECRETARY OF STATE 
  

January 4, 1980 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Attorney General 
State of Texas 

Supreme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: CIVIL ACTION #MO-88-CA-154 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434 ET AL V. Mattox ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WES[ERN DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, MIDLAND=ODESSA DIVISION 

Dear General Mattox: 

As I told you in my letter to you of December 21, 
1989, I opposed the proposed agreed order which you 

were negotiating with the plaintiffs, Apong the 
reasons were that it would be difficult to ad- 

minister; some citizens may effectively lpe dis- 
enfranchised in elections under the proppsed plan; 

and my belief that judicial selection is|a matter for 
the Texas Legislature to address. None-the-lass, you 
submitted the plan and the court in great part 

adopted the plan, Therefore, as a named| defendant in 

the referenced cause, I am instructing ypu Bs my 

legal counsel to immediately fils a Motibn for a Stay 

of the entire Order dated January 2, 1986p. This stay 

shoud be sought to be maintained until fpll appellate 

review on the merits. I further instruck you to make 

an interlocutory appeal on all available issues from   
‘such Order. The problems mentioned in that December 21st 

1ettar continue to exist under Judge Bunkon's Order. 

As Chief Elections Officer of the State,|I am entrusted 

with the duty of advising and assisting plection 

authorities with regard to the applicatipn, operatien, 

and interpretation of the Election Code nd election 

matters gsnerally. There ars numerous problems in 

implementing the nonpartisan judicial 

An Eas! Oosartunity Emalover 

EXHIBIT A   
 



   ~ SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C2 BYU + IU. 14mm x 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Page 2 

elections in nine 
brief list of only 

(1) Which 
It appears that 
order cites on page 7, Item 6! 

Section 41.001(b) (3) of the Taxas Blect. 
ran election held un 
other tribunal...." 

Code which refers to 

an order of a court or 

(2) 
the arsvezr to Question (1 

the elections); whe author 

in the elections; who is the custodian of the 

cords; and so forth. 

§3) ¥hich slectien precincts are to be 

elections? 

(4) 

(5) As the slections 

of a ‘primary election” in Section 1.0035(14) 

Code, is it to be assumed that 

paid by candidates, no petitions 

no judicial petitions as requize 

6) 
Boot Code, the 
district office. U 

this state canvass na 
after the election, i.e., Nay 20. 

runoff is to begin on Xay 14 

tion Code. There is not 
preparation of ballots for 
Juna 2 runoff. 4 

¥ho appoints the election judges? 

Governor is to canvass the 

absantes voting to 

(7) Who vill be the absentee voting cle 

Lubbock, and Xidland Counties as the election 

countyvida in those counties? 

(8) What will be the pronedure to 

vhose term is not on the ballot in 1990 resigns 

the unsxpired tarm be on the ballot in May? 

shore could be a problem in preservin 

primary runoff in that absant 
in on April 16 while 

9) 
roeiion from tha 

the ¥ay § election will beg 

April 10. 

counties in Texas as set out in ¢t 

some of these problems is as folle 

authority is actually ordering tl 
Judge Bunton is ordering the ele 

There are numerous Other quastions rev 
above, e.¢., vho giv 

ses the voting syster 

do not fall within ¢ 

How will the canvass be conducted 

be uspd if a Jud 

  

he order. A 
we t 

ie aloctions? 
Ȣions as his 

Lon 
jer 

hlving arsund   es notice of 
te be usad 

eslaction re- 

  

   

    

sed for the 

definition 
of the Rlection 

there will be np £iling fees 

in lieu of filing fees, and 
d in certain counties? 

Under the 
returns for a 

nder Section 67.012 of the Rlection Code, 

not be held earlier than the 15th day 
Absentee whting 

under the provision) of the Rlec- 
enough time for th( canvass and 

for the 

gin for the 

ks in Bctor, 
will not be 

fl 

1 the election 
es voting for 
the runoff is 

br dies? “Wi 

  
  

(| Vb be WW TW | WV) TT ow



    

  

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY Ww B=YU IU 10MM v “@ rare 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Fage 13 

(39) There is no provision in the Order fora tiling of 

declaration of write-in candidacys thus, thers will be an 

unlimited numbsr of write-in candidates in the ellscticna and 

all write-in votes vill have to be counted. 

(11) ¥hich political subdivision vill pay the coats of 

conduct {ng the elections? Harris County will have no other 

elections on May 8 and the County Clerk estimates the cost for 

the election will be some $1 mi lion in Harris Ccunty alone. 

Thare are numerous other questions and problems with tlie implemen- 

tation of Judge Bunton's Order which I will not list i the inter- 

est of brevity. 1 am concerned, however, that on Page 4 of the 

Order Judge Bunton says: 

  
... An Agraaed Settlement was entered into by and lletveun 

the Plaintiffs and Defendants in this matter, but was not 

approved by some cf the Intervenors. 

1 would refer you to my letter of Dacamber 21, 1989,| in vhich I 

objected to that proposed settlement and ‘raquest{efi] that you 

refrain from entering inte such plan and that you I frain from 

entering inte any other such settlement or plan withcut my prior 

written consent.’ 

  As Jo know, unless the court's order is stayed by |nld-Tanuary 

1990, when cendidates have been certified and ballets are being 

prepared, the slection le will have progressed beyond a point 

at which it may reasonably be altered. Furthermore, jt is impor- 

tant that the legislature have a reasonable period of time to 

address this issue in a special session. As a resuly, I need to 

xrow whether you vill seek the stay in accordance with|my instruc- 

tion. I need your response in 8 tinely manner to snable me to seek 

independent counsel, without cost to the state, in tlie event you 

vill not abide by my instructions. Nev counsel would n adequate 

time to seek a stay befors mid-January 1930. 

1 lock forvard to hearing from you. 

sincerely, 

   

   
! ve ® Baye 

secretary of Sua 

GER TH/blltzs 

cot Judge Lucius D. Bunton, 111, Judge, United Btates Listrice 

Court, Western District, Xidland=-Odessa Division 

  
 



   SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY @ 8-90 10:16AM 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Page ¢ 

a 

Clerk, United States District Court, Wester 

Midland-Odessa Division 

Ns. Mary P. Keller 
First Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney Genazal 

Nr. Javier Guajardo 

Assistant Attorney Gensral 

P. 0. Box 12548, Capitecl Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2546 

Mr. william L. Garrett 

Garrett, Thompson & chang 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75223 

Mr, Rolando Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201 Forth St. Kary's, Suite 3521 

gan Antonio, Texas 78205 

¥s. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Kudson Street, 16th Floor 

Xew York, Nev York 10013 

Xs. Gabrielle X. ¥cDonald 

301 Congrass Avenue, Suite 2050 
Austin, Taxas 78701 

Xr. Edvard B. Cloutman, II 

Nullinaz, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 BRlm Btresat 
Dallas, Texas 78226-1617 

Mr. J. Eugene Clements 

porter & Clemants 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3800 

Houston; Texas 77003-2730 

Mr. Robert HB. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 

2600 Momentum Place 

1717 Kain Street 

Dallas, Texas 75301 

{ 1lOLLO4D IDL! 

n District, 

  
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C } B=YU s1U« 1 1AM 

The Honorable Jim Kattox 

Page 5 

The Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Governor, State of Texas 

The Honorable William P. Hobby 

Lieutenant Governor, Stata of Texas 

The Honorable Gibson D. Lewis 

Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips 

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas 

   



- 

    

PETE 

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 : 9:58AM i 
. —— 

siz 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Ve. 
NO. 

7132234519:% 8 

  

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

LO
N 

Wn
 

01
 

LO
N 

LO
Y 

UD
 

LD
N 

DY
 

WH
 

LU
N 

Defendants-Appellants. 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF INDEPENDE] 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

NOW COMES George S. Bayoud, Jr., ("Bayoud"), 

State and Defendant herein, and files this Notice 

of Independent Counsel in the above~-styled and numbe 

would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. 

Secretary of 

bf Designation 

red cause, and 

Defendant Bayoud has heretofore informed hig attorney of 

record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General ¢ 

Texas, that he does not support the Mattox/LULAC I 

the interim plan adopted by the Court, does not 

correct legal principles applicable to this case hav 

by the Court. Further, Defendant Bayoud has reques 

to immediately file an Emergency Application for 

Interlocutory Appeal of this Court’s January 2, 1990 

No. MO-88=-CA-154 (W.D.Tex.) because time is of the e 

Court’s order would create chaos in the administrati 

election laws which administration is the legal res 

Defendant Bayoud as Secretary of State. 

1 EXHIBIT 

if the State of 

nterim Plan or 

jgree that the 

© Ben applied 

ted Jim Mattox 

Stay and an 

Order in Cause 

essence and the 

bn of the Texas 

ponsibility of   
 



   
€ Smt swe v 

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 i 9:58AM ; zy 
* ——— 

IX. 

Attorney General Mattox refuses to represent 

state Bayoud’s legitimate interest, views and desi: 

adversary manner, is not affording Secretary of Sti 

same diligent and faithful representation to whic 

entitled, is failing to adequately represent his clie 

herein, has made agreements without his client’s 

consent, has failed to inform Bayoud of important dev 

engaged in private negotiations with the Plaintiff 

compromises and agreements unacceptable to Bayoud, 

exists a conflict of interest between Bayoud, tbh 

Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has breached his 

and instructions and is substituting his personal v 

of his client to placate Plaintiff’s wishes and a 

political agenda. 

| 111. 

Defendant Bayoud has previously informed the At 

in writing of his intent to engage John L. Hill, J 

Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas Commerce 1 

Texas 77002, as his independent counsel, at no cost 

so as to protect Defendant Bayoud’s right to legal 

that will maintain a truly adversarial relationsh 

parties and guarantee that Secretary Bayoud’s legal 

fairly and energetically and independently carried 

Exhibit A attached hereto.) 

7132234518:% 8 

Secretary of 

res in a truly 

ate Eayoud the 

h a client is 

nt’s interests 

knowledge or 

elopnents, has 

resulting in 

and there thus 

e client, and 

client’s trust 

iews for those 

Avance his own 

torney General 

r. of Liddell, 

ower , Houston, 

to the State, 

representation 

ip between the 

positions are 

forward. (See   
 



    

  

FASS AN " ——— -- 

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 10:00AM ; srzs fy 7132234519:810 

- 

IV. 

Defendant Bayoud hereby notifies this Honorable Court of the 

designation of John L. Hill, Jr. as his independent ¢ounse2l in this 

cause to carry forward his legal positions as above described. 

Re ectfully submitted, 

- 7 V4 

Si K Ma. 
Jofn L. Hill, Jr 

ate Bar No. og00027 

andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 16727600 

Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 
Hill & LaBoon 

3300 Texas Commerce Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 226-1200 

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANT GEORGE |S. BAYOUD, JR., 

SECRETARY OF ST2TE 

      

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the| Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure this day of January, 1990. 

2h 
77 ohn L. Hill, Ji 

  

  

CARTERG\JLE\BAYOUDOL   
 



   . . PU IU UU AM, sizsens fly» SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, zie 1- 8-80 10:01AM ; 51 04111= 
SCv 3YILIDCELL: SAPP. 2:VLEV Pole 4=80 : 2:24PN : §120635840- 

7132234519 ; #11 

7132234519:%11 

$123204111:8 2 

  

  

    
  

  

NS DIVISION ra beg Es 
13 «)-%% 
Amin. Temas 77711.3080 

Discionue Filings Sexiion 
P.C. Box IW 
23 463-3704 
Austin, Teas 7171 1.20% 

DATA SXRYICLS 
DEV tow 
20. hen 12007 
$13 e43-3609 
Austin, Tew 71711-2807 

Aunin. Tess 78911.2807 

Staff Services 
PO. box 12067 
$12 443-6600 
Ausiin, Tess 79711-2887 

STATUTORY MLINGS 
DIVIRION 
Corpor lions 
P.0. Box 13400 
312 €6)-5358 
AU, Teras 70711.969 

Austin, Tessas T0711.2887 

Teast Register 
PO. Sox 13834 
§ 3 o6)-156) 
bustin. Tesas 78711.3824 

Unions Commer! 
+0 Pex 3193 Cale 
113 €75.2%¢ 
bume, Tease M*11.310 

  

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 
George S. Bayoud, Jr, 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

  January 4, 1990 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 
Attorney General 
Stata of Taxas 
Supreme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: -1-e U dls COUNCIL $4434 ET AL, Vv, NM ATIOX ET AL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ¥ESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MIDLAND=ODZSSA DIVistoN 

Dear General Mattox: 

In a talephone conversation vith Rahea Hicks of your 
    

office this morning, I asked that he o lst ze know if you were f£ilin a Koti referenced Order 
  PRsult with you and 

n for Stay of the Judge Lucius D. § nton, IIT. I had Previously notified you, by letter off Decanber 21, 198s eZ ry opposition to Your proposed agree delivered to your office at noon today ing my instruction to you as my 

  

I also had 
& letter contain- 

sl [Counsel to ipmedi- ately file a stay and an interlocutpry appeal on all available issues from such Order. It 1s nov obvious rox your renarks at your 1:30 P:R. press cohfers:ce today that you have no intention of 211ing a Jotion fer Stay or interlocutory Appeal in sccordance vith my 

refusal to repre- 

  

Please be advised that because of you 

instructions. 

sent me in accordance with RY instructions given to you as your client in this matter, I aa engaging outside counsel at no cost to the State of Texas. Jormer State, Attorney General, and Chief Ju tice 

   
Supreme Court, Judge John Hill has agr 4s Secretary of State in this matter, in contact with your office and will 

Jud 

Secretary of 
of the Texas 

ed to represent me 
ge a 1 vill be 

the ap- propriate documents with the Court th substitutes as my counsal. 

CEB:ITH/bl/1trs 

As Equal Opportuaity Rmpioyer   
Jr. EXHIBIT A