State Defendants' Answers to Complaints in Intervention; Motion to Defer Answer to Complaint; Proposed Order

    THE ) P 
OF TEXAS , 

JIM PRIATTOX 

/ NEY GENERAL ATTORN 2 May 30, 1989 

John D. Neil 

Deputy U. S. District Clerk 
P. O. Box 10708 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: LULAC Council #4434, et al. v. Mattox, et al., 

No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are the 

original and one copy. of each of the following: (a) State Defendants’ 

Answer to Complaint in Intervention by Houston Lawyers’ 
Association, et al.; (b) State Defendants’ Answer to Complaint in 

Intervention of Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley, and Joan Winn White; and 
(c) State Defendants’ Motion to Defer Answer to Complaint in 

Intervention of Legislative Black Caucus of Texas, along with a 

proposed Order. 

Sincerely, 

Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ce: Counsel of record 

SNL [AGS = 2900 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-23548 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

STATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN 

INTERVENTION BY HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 

The State Defendants -- that is, the Attorney General of Texas, the 

Secretary of State of Texas, and the thirteen members of the Judicial 

Districts Board of Texas, all in their official capacities -- answer as follows 

to the Complaint in Intervention ("complaint") of the Houston Lawyers 

Association, Alice Bonner. Weldon Berry, Francis Williams, Rev. William 

Lawson, Deloyd T. Parker, and Bennie McGinty: 

First Defense 

The complaint fails to state a claim against State Defendants upon 

which relief can be granted because each of the judicial districts challenged 

in Harris County already is a single member district. State district judges 

are elected to a specific judicial district and serve as the judge for that 

district without sitting as part. of a collegial decisionmaking body. Vote 

dilution claims cannot be made against a single member electoral system. 

Second Defense 

L The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in the first 

sentence of {1 of the complaint. The remainder of 1 of the complaint  



  

contains only averments to which no responsive pleading is required, 

however, to the extent it is construed to contain averments requiring a 

responsive pleading, the State Defendants deny them. 

2. 192 and 3 of the complaint contain only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent they are construed 

to contain averments requiring a responsive pleading, the State Defendants 

deny them. 

3. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of averments in {4-10 of the 

complaint. 

4. The State Defendants admit that the averments in {11-13 of 

the complaint accurately identify the holders of the official positions to 

which reference is made and are generally accurate in their descriptions of 

the state law-based résponsibilities concerning the administration and 

enforcement of the laws of the state of Texas, including those concerning 

the electoral process. Because of uncertainty about the intended reach of 

some of the descriptions of the officials’ duties in f11-13, however, the 

State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of those averments beyond what 1s stated in the 

preceding portion of this paragraph. 

S. = The State Defendants deny the -averments in the first three 

sentences of {14 of the complaint and admit the averments in the fourth 

sentence of that paragraph. The State Defendants are without knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments 

in the last sentence of {14 of the complaint. 

 



6. The State Defendants deny the averments in {15 of the 

complaint, among other things, because of + uncertainty as to the full 

meaning of "history." 

7. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {16-18 of 

the complaint. 

8. The State Defendants admit the averments in {19 of the 

complaint. 

0, The State Defendants deny the averments in {20-22 of the 

complaint. 

10. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {23-24 of 

the complaint. 

11. The State Defendants deny the avermenmis in 423 of the 

complaint. 

12. Except for the averments in the second sentence of 27, which 

they admit, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {26-29 of 

the complaint. 

13. The State Defendants admit the averments in the first sentence 

of 30 of the complaint and deny the averments in the remainder of that 

paragraph. 

14. The State Defendants deny the averments in {31-32 of the 

complaint, in part because of uncertainty as to the intended reach of some 

of the allegations.  



  

15. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of ‘the averments in 133 of the 

complaint. 

16. The State Defendants deny the averments in (434-35 of the 

complaint. 

17. The State Defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to 

the paragraphs 11-29 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as their 

response to {36 of the complaint. 

18. The State Defendants admit the averments..in. 37 of the 

complaint. 

19. The State Defendants admit that the averments in {38 of the 

complaint are generally correct, but note that the first sentence of the 

current version of the referenced constitutional provision states that the 

"State shall be divided into judicial districts, with each district having one 

or more Judges as may be provided by law or by this Constitution." 

20. The State Defendants deny the averments in {39-40 of the 

complaint. 

21. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {41 of the 

complaint. 

22. The State Defendants deny the averments in 942 of the 

complaint. 

23. The State Defendants admit ‘the averments in 943 of the 

complaint. 

24. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of ‘the averments in {44 of the 

complaint. 

 



25. The State Defendants deny the averments in {45-48 of the 

complaint. 

26. The remainder of the complaint contains only legal averments 

to which no responsive pleading is required. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
First Assistant Attorney General 

—] Gs Yeh, 
RENEA HICKS 
Special Assistant ar General 

  

JAVIER GUAJARDO 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of May, 1989, I sent a. copy of 

the foregoing pleading by first class United States mail, postage 

prepaid, to each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, 

Thompson & Chang, 8300 Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 
Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. 

McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 78701; 

Edward B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., 3301 
Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter & 

£4  



Eo ° 

Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; 

and Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 

Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. : 

  

  
Renea Hicks VTA 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
Defendants. 

STATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 
OF JESSE OLIVER, FRED TINSLEY, AND JOAN WINN WHITE 

The State Defendants -- that is, the Attorney General of Texas, the 

Secretary of State of Texas, and the thirteen members of the Judicial 

Districts Board of Texas, all in their official capacities -- answer as follows 

to the Complaint in Intervention ("complaint") of Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley, 

and Joan Winn White: 

: First Defense 

The complaint fails to state a claim against State Defendants upon 

which relief can be granted because each of the judicial districts challenged 

in Dallas County already is a single member district. State district judges 

are elected to a specific judicial district and serve as the judge for that 

district without sitting as part of a collegial decisionmaking body. Vote 

dilution claims cannot be made against a single member electoral system. 

Second Defense 

i. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in the first 

sentence of {1 of the complaint. The remainder of {1 of the complaint 

contains only averments to which no responsive pleading is required; 

however, to the extent it is construed to contain averments requiring a 

responsive pleading, the State Defendants deny them.  



  

® » 
2; 92 and 3 of the complaint contain only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent they are construed 

to contain averments requiring a responsive pleading, the State Defendants 

deny them. 

3. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of averments in {4 of the 

complaint. 

4. The State Defendants admit that the averments in {5 of the 

complaint accurately identify the holders of the official positions to which 

reference is made (except for two members of the Judicial Districts Board) 

and are generally accurate in their descriptions of the state law-based 

responsibilities concerning the administration and enforcement of the laws 

of the state of Texas, including those concerning the electoral process. 

Because of uncertainty about the intended reach of some of the 

descriptions of the officials’ duties in 5, however, the State Defendants 

are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of those averments beyond what is stated in the preceding portion of 

this paragraph. 

5. The State Defendants admit the averments in 6 of the 

complaint. 

6. The State Defendants deny the averments in {7-8 of the 

complaint. 

7. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in 9 of the 

complaint. 

8. The - State “Defendants deny ‘the averments “in 910 of the 

complaint. 

 



  

0, The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {11 of the 

complaint. | 

10. The State Defendants deny the averments in (12, 14, 16, 18, 

19, 20, and 21 of the complaint. 

11. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in 13, 15, and 

17 of the complaint. 

12. 922 of the complaint contains only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required. 

13. The State Defendants deny the averments in §423-24 of the 

complaint. 

14. The State Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 22- 

23 of their Answer to the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as their 

response to 9925-28 of the complaint. 
Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
First Assistant Attorney General 

  

fr Ie ) COs, Wek 
RENEA HICKS T 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS 

i3. 

 



iw 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of May, 1989, I sent a copy of the 

foregoing pleading by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 

each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 

Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Sherrilyn A. Hl, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New 
York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 

2050, Austin, Texas 78701; Edward B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab 

& Cloutman, P.C.. 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene 

Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 

77002-2730; and Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum 

Place, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

a. AN / 1 4%. 
Renea Hicks 
  

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DEFER ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

IN INTERVENTION OF LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS OF TEXAS 

The State Defendants -- that is, the Attorney General of Texas, the 

Secretary of State of Texas, and the thirteen members of the Judicial 

Districts Board of Texas, all in their official capacities -- hereby move the 

Court to defer the necessity of their answering the Complaint in 

Intervention of the Legislative Black Caucus of Texas on the following 

grounds: 

‘ The Legislative Black Caucus of Texas ("LBC") has filed with the 

Court a Motion to Strike Intervention. In the motion, the LBC has asked 

the Court to permit its withdrawal from participation in the liability phase 

of the case and to allow it to participate in the remedy phase (if one 

occurs). 

2. In light of the foregoing matters, the State Defendants urge the 

Court to not require an answer to pleadings of the LBC until the LBC files 

an amended complaint, based on the capacity in which it is participating. 

WHEREFORE, the State Defendants urge the Court to grant this motion 

to defer an answer.  



; RA ® 

  

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 3 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

    

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of May, 1989, I sent a copy of the 

foregoing pleading by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 

each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 

Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New 

York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 

2050, Austin, Texas 78701; Edward B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab 

& Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene 

Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 

77002-2730; and Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum 

Place, 1717 Man Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

rat 

ar—— 

  

Rotee—Hiks 

“. 

 



» 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

On this day came before the Court the State Defendants’ Motion to 

Defer Answer to Complaint in Intervention of Legislative Black Caucus of 

Texas. After giving due consideration to the matters raised by that motion, 

and responses to it, the Court is of the opinion that it is well-founded . 

Therefore, it is hereby 

ORDERED that State Defendants’ Motion to Defer Answer to Complaint 

in Intervention of Legislative Black Caucus of Texas is GRANTED. The State 

Defendants need not file an answer to any complaint in this action by the 

Legislative Black Caucus of Texas ("LBC") until the LBC has filed an 

amended complaint. 

SIGNED and ENTERED this day of June, 1989. 

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE