Memorandum Opinion and Order

    i    
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION i | L : 0 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICANS 
CITIZENS (LULAC), COUNCIL #4434§ - . . .... . NOV. 03133 
et al. § 1 COURT _ Plaintiffs, :. 8. au np ots WS: garner coo 
AND § RANE Tees DEPUTY 
HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION D 
et al. S 

+ Plaintiff-Intervenors .§ 37th ar TL FT an es 

5 A ii 
Vv. $.: 1. MO=88-CA-154 

§ 
JIM MATTOX, et al. 6 

State Defendants ~~ § 

AND ..-.:ox : ty 
JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD AND § 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 8 

MEMORANDUM OPINION, AND ORDER 

  

The above-captioned cause came on for trial before the Court 
- . ha a - ren me Ee 2s, ES ism 

FG woop 

on September 18, 1989. This suit was ‘brought by named individual 

Plaintiffs and members of the League of United Latin  irericen 

Citizens ("LoLACt), Council #4434, LULAC Council #4451 and 'LULAC 

Statewide. Plaintiffs: ‘are Mexican-American and Black citizens of 
+ 
1oal 

the State of: Texas.-- Plaintiffs sek (1) a Declaratory Judgment 

that the existing at: large scheme of. electing State District Judges 

in nine (9). target . counties of the state of Tergs. “violates 

Plaintiffs’ civil rights by unconstitutionally diluting the voting 

strength of Mexican-American and Black electors in violation of 

 



  

Section 2-of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1973 (West Supp. 1989) ("Voting Rights Act")'; (2) a permanent 

injunction prohibiting - the’ calling," holding, supervising or 

certifying any future elections for District Judges” under the 

present at large scheme inthe target areas; (3) ..formation of: a 

. judicial districting scheme by which District Judges: in the target... 

areas are elected from districts which include single member 

districts; and (4) costs and attorneys’ -fees. : ASNT LAr TOrts Lo nunha 

“This case really had its beginning in 1965, “when Congress :.: . 

  

, Section 2 provides.-in pertinent part: 
"{a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to 

voting: or:standard, practice, or procedure shall be 
imposed or applied by any State or political 
subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or. . 
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United 

"States to vote ion account (of ‘race Or €OlOr ua... .li-ic Gi rein 

“*{b) + A violation of subsection (a) of this:rsection= 
is established if, based upon the totality of 

ttircumstances, it" is -shown that the political: tha 
processes leading to nomination or election in the 
~State or political ‘subdivision are notiequally open 
to participation by members of a class of citizens 

“protected by subsection (a) of this section in that 
its members have less opportunity to participate in 

>the political process and elect representatives of 
their choice. The extent to which members of a 
protected class have been elected to office .in. the. ..- 
State or political subdivision is one circumstance 

which may be considered: "Provided, That nothing in   

this section establishes a right to have members of 
a protected class elected in numbers equal ro their: oo 
proportion in the population.® Yai nLerarl 

(Emphasis in the original.) = ii ne: molecular 

 



    

passed the Voting Rights Act and it was signed by President 

Johnson. This Act, as everyone knows, had as its purpose -"to: rid 

the country of racial-discriminating-in voting." SSTEnTL, Tra 

The next chapter in the saga was the holding in Chisom v. 
  

Edwards, ‘839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1988); cert. denied, ‘sub nom; #7" 

Chisom v. Edwards, 109 S.Ct. 310 (1989) (Chisom I). -In‘Chisom'1% 

  

Judge Johnson’ ‘held: "Minorities ‘may not be prevented from using - 

Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] in their efforts to combat 

racial discrimination:in the election of state judges; a contrary 

result ‘would prohibit minorities from achieving an efféctive voice =" 

in choosing those individuals society elects to administer -and  - 

"Having concluded, as will later be pointed out in formal 

Findings of’ ‘Fact and Conclusions: of{ law, that there is" racial i: 

discrimination in:the election of state judges in some counties of I 

the State ‘of Texas, rand the law plainly - being ‘that “such © 

discrimination is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act, this opinion 

should not come as any surprise -to the attorneys or judges ‘Gf thig "=: 

Mr. Justice Holmes, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 - 
  

U.S. 205, 221, in dissenting, said: 

-I recognize without hesitation that judges do and’ - 
must legislate, but they can do so only intersti- 
tially; they are confined from molar to molecular 

en interpret the . law. ", TERR EI er ie te seem 12 EE ee Fie maa pos oa ATE bk en a 

 



  

-motions. 

This dissent has been-on: the books for 82 years and, while 

this Court recognizes that some judges may legislate, this Court 

is extremely reluctant to do-so. Legislation should be done by 

legislators. This Court:-:has determined that our current system, 

as it applies-to some counties, violates Section 2 of the Voters... 

Rights Act. Some fixing has to be done, because the current system 

ALLS haf 9 5 a BF vores 
is broken. .-. Goudune, tove DO lous OF tna muatiricatrion of 2 4 

In writing this opinion,-I am cognizant of the fact ‘that our 

Texas Constitution will need to. .be amended. Legislators -should 

seriously. consider nonpartisan elections for District Judges. As 

Chief Judge Tom ‘Phillips- pointed out :in this ‘testimony, “it really 

makes no sense that judges are selected because of their political- 

affiliation. - A. judge should decide: matters before. him. without oa. 

regard to. partisan politics. -It speaks well of our : current Faas 

judiciary that our sitting judges have been able to make decisions 

without regard to whether the judge is Republican or Democrat. 

As long as judges, :however, are selected on a partisan 

ballot, there will be some rancor and enmity between the successful 

and the unsuccessful candidate. The loser is going to have regrets 

by virtue of the fact that she or he did not secure enough votes 

in an election. - It makes no sense to believe that a judge is 

 



  

selected because the top of the ticket is either weak or strong. ~~ 

This Court. felt the animosity: between certain - judges: in. the 

courtroom. ‘There is no need for this. Certainly judicial reform 

will not make all candidates live by the Golden Rule, but it is a 

step in the right directiony: i: va. 30x SINR Lh A 

“It was "brought "to the Court’s attention that perhaps a 

majority of ‘the voters in a General Election, and for that matter, . 

in Primary Elections, have no idea of the qualification of a judge 

for whom they vote. Their vote is cast because a straight ticket 

is being cast, "and "arstraight ticket includes judicial nominees 

from a particular political party. 

If the Constitution -is to be changed, ‘would it not make 

sense to have judges elected when members of school boards or city 

councils are elected? : These races are traditionally nonpartisan, - 

and people going to the polls to vote for school trustees Or mayors --: 

have for:rthe-most part some idea of the qualifications of the 

candidates. Judges could be selected at the same time in order to - 

make sure ‘that one was mot getting votes simply" because one is - 

Democrat or- Republicans: ': Minority voters could go to the polls 

with their heads held high and with some realization that their 

preferred candidate either would be or could be elected. 

Certainly, it is not Court’s intention to tell the 

 



  

legislature how its job is to be accomplished. Single member" 

districts may or may not be the answer if we are to continue to 

have partisan-elections. There may be easier and better solutions 

that can evolve through the legislative process. —- 

: These are troubled waters. One ‘hesitates to plunge into 

such waters, because our system of selecting judges has, for the.: io. 

most part, served us well for many many years. Our Congress, 3 

however,: in-:1964, made:changes. ~Our= Courts: have construed thoseinztad 

changes, ‘and it is '‘now necessary’ to move forward: so - that 

minorities can Tealize the rights .degaliy bestowed ¥OOn thew; and - 

which have; in ‘the past, been denied.- r 

TTY YT ins SR, LR de mn ~ pr = - caw man oem d —- 1 - H \, - b Fh [a M PTR. 2 - > fam ~ * od ~e le TT 

THE "PRESENT AT-LARGE SYSTEM Lo SEAR SY   

VThis. litigation ‘challenges “the . system of electing - 172 = = 

District Court Judges at-large from areas composed of entire 

counties.? ETL RN 

The present system of electing. District Court Judges in 

Texas ‘requires that each judge ‘be elected from a District no 

smaller than a county. Tex. Const. Art. 5 § 7a(i) (Vernon Supp. 

  

‘~The counties at issue are: Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, 
Travis, Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and Midland. 

 



    

1989). . Each Judge .serves a term of four (4) -years: Tex. Const. 

Art. 5 § 7 (Vernon Supp. 1989). Candidates for District Judge must ~~ =.= 

be citizens of the United States and the State of Texas, licensed: 

to practice law in this State and a practicing lawyer or Judge of 

a Court in’ this State, or both combined for four years. . id. 
rrrriin 

4 
a -— 

4 of 

  
Candidates must" have’ been’ a resident of. that election district: for Mia i 

yop Sams sma -- oi it 27 g ' Crd 2 T= FOR Peta iia HRY eas 

at least: two: OY Sears. and reside: in’ that district during his or ° 
Aas ” 

Te dA sav 3 3 4 [DR 

her term of slection, Id. District Court’ Judges 1 must be. nominated 

in a primaty. election by a: majority of the - votes cast. Texy SESE 

Election Code § 172003 “(Vernon 1986) - Bach candidate’s political —-— 
fd Sm 2“ TT 

party is indicated on the election ballot... Judicial candidates are vio 

usually. listed . far. down on “an ‘election: ballot: “They run “forts ih 

specifically: nTbeved courts. and must secure a clagalisy of the 

vote in the’ general: election Xo win a jadieial seat. LE ruiatimehina 
= . hey FL pd - vy 4 ot 3 (->F fT Mii bm TE 3 I i Ta Li I Sods [Fs Ar J A 5 = L Po HL RS i Ib ¢ +33 . 2 - J y/ F t \ . ‘ . B t 4 -a 

+ i A AEE J = - 

Fe 

4 METHODOLOGY. DATA AND ELECTIONS ANALYZED Benn ds Lail by an   

Liar BE pi 2 rer ST YET 

‘Statistical analysis is the: common! methodology employed and . 
~~ - He 3 5+ n 

accepted “to ‘prove the Sxistence of ‘political cohesiveness and 

  

This system is. "at- slazge" because judges are" elected from mer 
the entire gounty rather, ‘than from geographic subdistrices within i 
the county. sro ; 3 

 



  

racial bloc voting necessary to establish a voter dilution case.®* 

Ecological regression analysis’ and extreme case analysis® were-the 

types of- statistical analysis used by Plaintiffs’ experts in the 

present case.’ - 

  

  

L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), Justice Brennan held that-racial bloc voting can- 
be established by a type of abstract statistical inquiry called 
"bivariate regression analysis." This analysis correlates the race: 

*" In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 ; 

of the voters and the level of support given to the candidate. 
Id. at:é1:--If a candidate is supported by a large proportion of 
the minority group yet does not win, the vote is declared to be 

2 
racially polarized in a- legally significant sense and racial bloc . i = 
voting is taken to be established. , 

All variables beside race: of the voters and-support ‘given-- 
the candidates that might also explain voters’ choices are 
expressly excluded from consideration. In Justice Brennan's view, 
"[1]t is the difference between the choices made by [minorities] 
and whites - not the reasons for that difference - that results-inz = 
[minorities] “having less opportunity than whites to elect their: 
preferred representatives." - Id. at-63. 2 GER : 

5 

behavior, i.e.; which candidate receives how many :votes from ‘each: 
race/ethnic group. This type of ‘analysis incorporates the use of “ 
a coefficient of correlation or Pearson r, accompanied ‘by “anion 

ALEVE «vc 

' Ecological ‘regression ‘analysis shows = the relationship:: oo 
between the --ethnic "composition of’ voting precincts and ‘voting: 

estimate of ‘the statistical significance of r, the coefficient of i" 
determination’ and the regression line. = See Overton wv. Citycof :. zc 

  Austin, 871:F.2d 529, 539 (5th Cir..1989). tne coo: 
=” vi HEE, : 5 ALE Tk Sm 

homogenous precincts in which almost all of the people of voting 
age belong to one ethnic group. If race/ethnicity reflects voting = 
behavior, then election results in predominately minority precincts 
should differ from results in predominately Anglo precincts: : 

7 The majority which agreed with Justice Brennan that voter. 
dilution” was ‘demonstrated by the impact Or results of the Zimmer - 
factors and the Gingles threshold analysis deserted him when he. 
came to the proof of: the second and third Gingles factorsi==t. 

FE 

~~ 

LI}
 

.- ‘Extreme case or homogenous precinct, analysis :zlobks té- 

y 

 



  

The data used by Plaintiffs to support their statistical 

analysis varied according to.the type of information available to 

them since the 1980-Census. Plaintiffs used voting age population 

data by census tract to establish the Gingles 1 factor.of.size-and 

geographic compactness. Plaintiffs used a variety of data sets to.~ ' 1 

establish the Gingles 2 cohesiveness and "Gingles . 3 white bloc 

voting -factors-depending on information available in the County in + 

question.” - - : i te vat art a 

In Counties where Plaintiffs presented a case on behalf of = 

Hispanics ‘only,’ they relied on the’ percentage of Hispanic 

  

= ...Justice White maintained that under Justié& Brennan's test . == 
there is racially polarized voting whenever a majority of whites 
vote differently from a majority of ‘blacks, regardless of the race 
of the candidates. Gingles, supra, at 83. To illustrate his 
disagreement; Justice White posited the hypothetical which assumed 
an eight-member multimember district that was 60% white and 40% 

  

black, the blacks being geographically located so that- two safe .C 
black single-member districts could be drawn. Justice White 
further assumed that there were six white and two black Democrats 
running against six white and two black Republicans. Justice White 
wrote,  "[u]nder Justice Brennan's test, there would be polarized 
voting and a likely § 2 violation if all the Republicans, including 
the two: blacks, are elected, ‘and. 80% of the blacks in -the 
predominately black areas vote Democratic.* Id. at 83. Justice 
White concluded that such analysis was "interest-group politics 
rather that a rule hedging against racial discrimination." Id. at 
83. 

Justice O'Connor and the three other Justices for whom she 
wrote did not reject bivariate regression analysis solely to 
establish political cohesiveness and assess the minority groups 
prospects for electoral success... Id. at 100. ‘However, Justice 
O'Connor did reject Justice Brennan's position that evidence that 
explains divergent racial voting patterns is irrelevant. 

 



  

registered voters in voting precincts in any given year. These 

figures were based on Spanish surname counts done by the Secretary - 

of State of Texas. In other instances, Plaintiffs used counts of - 

Black and Hispanic total or voting -age population.in each precinct. . 

of a particular county. When counts were not available, Plaintiffs- TERE 

based their analysis on 1980 census information. In some counties, 

precincts retained the same boundaries reported in the 1980 census. 

1980 census data. from precincts with unchanged boundaries wage used : 

in those counties. In ‘several counties, Plaintiffs reconfigured 

precinct lines’ and used demographic. data from these newly created _. E 

precincts- -When relying on census data, Plaintiffs calculated the i 

numberof ‘non-minorities within precincts by subtracting the number = = 

of Hispanics and Blacks from the total number of persons within the 

precinct. 5% ROL EE I Se Mh kd RCE EEA Ce re 

Plaintiffs’ experts only reviewed elections where a minority 

candidate: opposed an Anglo. They preferred to. analyze general 

elections, however primary elections were analyzed when no minority. 

candidate made it past that stage of the electoral process. : 

The Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, requires 
  

  

8 “ 
“ id Ld id This process requires comparing new precinct maps with 

their new lines and census block maps that show racial composition 
of the blocks. This process is frequently used to update precinct 
data. 

10 

 



  

the analysis of several elections to determine if there is a 

pattern of voting related to.race/ethnicity. In the present case, 

when there were District Court elections in a- county in question 

in which a minority opposed an Anglo, Plaintiffs relied:soiely on---- 

analysis: of.: District Court elections. - In some Counties this =i 

included both general and primary elections. ‘Where there were not . 

enough-such bPistrict Court elections other elections were analyzed. 

First, County Court elections in which minorities opposed 1 Anglos 

were selected. Next, Plaintiffs turned to Justice of the Peace 

elections where the election district was at least.as large as 8 nine 

city within the county at igus, Finally, if morelevent Tooal 

judicial races occurred, -Plaintiffs analyzed statewide judicial 

elections. See Testimony of Dr. Robert Brischetto. 

Te All jurisdictional. :prereguisites ... necessary to : the 

maintenance of the claims of the parties have been fulfilled. - 

After reviewing the :testimony~and exhibits “introduced at: trial, as=:: 

well as the arguments and authorities of counsel, the Court thereby:  - .: 

enters ‘the following ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of: Law - 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. 

11 

 



  

FINDINGS OF FACT 
  

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 7T «. ‘in; ni<is Leis OLIVE 
  

~ 1. ~~ The names and ‘counties of residence -of -the ten. (10). '... 

named individual Plaintiffs are as follows: (a) Christina Moreno - 

Midland; (b) Aquilla‘Watson =~ Midland; (c) .Joan Ervin -_ Lubbock; 

(d) Matthew W. Plummer, Sr. - Harris; (e) Jim Conley - Bexar; (f) 

Volma Overton - Travis; (g) Gene Collins - Ector; (h) Al Price =~ 

Jefferson;- (i) Mary <-Ellen- Hicks '- Tarrant; and (j)_ Rev. ‘James... 

Thomas: =~ Galveston. :Each named Plaintiff is a citizen of the 

United States registered and qualified to. vote in. District Court. 

elections in Texas. Except for Christine Moreno, who is Hispanic; 

each named Plaintiff: Black. =~ ; SN re Ci A Pi 

ORGANIZATIONAL, PLAINTIFFS 

  

2. Plaintiffs: LULAC #4434 and LULAC #4451 are local. . =o- 

chapters of the larger.'Statewide LULAC organization. . Members of: 

the LULAC Statewide organization reside in all ‘of the counties . 

challenged in this suit. Depo.: of John Garcia. The organization 

is composed of both Mexican-American and Black residents of the ° 

State of Texas. The members of LULAC #4434 reside in Midland 

County. The members of LULAC: $4451 reside in Ector County. 

3.t cPraintiff- Intervenor he Roaston tT ets Association Eh 

Tu 3 or EV alan ITY TAN 

12 

 



  

("HLA"), -is an association of Black lawyers in Harris County. The 

participation of Plaintiff-Intervenor the Texas Black Legislative 

Caucus ("TBLC") is limited to the remedy stage of this litigation. 

ms A — SEH 

+ +... DEFENDANTS & DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

  

"4. Defendants are sued in their official capacities only. :. 

~~~ ~Defendant™ Jim Mattox is the Attorney General of the 

State of Texas and charged with the responsibility of enforcing the 

laws of the State. - 

Defendant George Bayoud is. Secretary of -State of Texas. 

As such he functions. as .chief- elections "officer charged with 

administering the election laws of the State." Secretary Bayoudiis- 

substituted as a party in this litigation for former Secretary of... i 

State Jack Rains. i: gupnlady on of 2.80%. 72 al Tats la RT Cg 
~ 

Defendants Thomas R. PhilYips, Michael J. McCormick; Ron 

Fn —— Chapman, Thomas J. Stovall, James" F- Clawson, Jr., Joe Ev: Kelly, unt 

Robert M. Blackmon, Sam M. Paxson, Weldon Kirk, Jeff Walker, Ray 

D. Anderson, Leonard Davis and Joe Spurlock, II are members of the ~~: 
5 eT 

Judicial Districts Board’ created by Art. V Section 7a of the Texas 

  

S Several members of the Judicial Districts Board. were 
replaced. by new members during the interim of this litigation. 
Michael J. McCormick: replaced John F. Onion, Robert M. Blackman’ = 
replaced Joe B. Evans and Jeff Walker replaced Charles Murray. 

13 

 



  

Constitution and Art. 24.911 et seg. of the Texas Government Code. 

The Judicial Districts Board :is -charged with reapportioning: 

districts from which District Court Judges are elected. 

—----~.8itting - District Court Judge Sharolyn Wood, 127th 

District Court, Harris County and Judge: Harold Entz, -Jr.,- 194th:iuc 

District Court, Dallas County Intervened in their ‘individual 

capacities as Defendants.’ 

-GINGLES THRESHOLD ANALYSIS 

Size and Geographic Compactness 
  

5¢::- ‘Harris - County. -: _. Harris County has the largest -- -   

population among the nine target Counties in this case. Plaintiffs 7 

are proceeding only on behalf of Black voters in Harris‘ County. == :: 

With a total population of 2,409,544, its: Black population is © 

473,698 (19.7%). There -are 1,685,024 people of voting age,’ with 

305,986 (18.2%) voting age Black residents of Harris County. 

  

1. Thirteen District Court Jud 

their request. 

11 
% 

total population of Blacks and Hispanics within the County. 

12 

tapes.” "TY 

14 

ges from Travis County initially: "tv 
intervened: as Defendants. The Court struck their intervention at =-.. 

In each County, Plaintiffs rely upon the 1980 Census: for i 

For. all Counties in this case, Plaintiffs ‘relied ond: clz 
computer’ print out of voting age populations prepared by the Data =7° 
Center ‘at Texas A&M University. directly from 1980 U.S. Census - 

 



  

Plaintiffs’ -Harris County ("H") Exhibit 01. 

i. There: are fifty "nine - (59) --Staté District Courts in. _.. :- 

Harris County.  _ Black residents are concentrated in the North 

Central, Central and South Central.sections :of:Harris County. ~ H- ~ 

04, p.. 2, Map:of Proposed Districts.!’. Evidence was introduced iiirii. 

that nine (9) Black single member districts of greater .than fifty.ciwoe. 

percent (50%) Black voting age population were possible. Id. at = 

1; Plaintiff-Intervenor Harris. County: "P-I:H") Exhibits: 2,-12acrvenc: 

6.: Dallas County. Dallas County is the second largest © .: 

County “involved in this case. Plaintiffs .are proceeding only on-~- -- 

behalf of Black voters. in Dallas County. Dallas County has a total 

‘population of 1,556,549. Its Black population is 287,613 (18.5%): 1 an 

There are 1,106,757 people of voting age, with 180,294 (16%) voting ina: a 

age Black residents. - Plaintiffs’ Dall@s~-Cdunty (*D*} Exhibit 017 crac 

wor: There were thirty six7(36) :State District Courts iin: cue. 

* it Th » : AT pe Tog . . LE re ~~ TE al y= . Ae ~~ rT i i 1 dl ¥ : : ~~ ea - - 3 - Lh —_—— RAC SS am BL -- 

  

Plaintiffs drew districts in each County of approximately 
equal size based on the number of District Courts in the County. 
Plaintiffs calculated the size and number of precincts in each 
proposed district on the basis of both total population and voting - 
age population. This Court recognizes that the concept of "one man 
one vote" does not apply to the judicial elections. - Chisom I, 
supra, at 1061. Accordingly, this Court’s analysis rests upon 
Plaintiffs’ calculation based upon voting age population. 
Plaintiffs drew each district on- this basis under the assumption. . : 
that each district should contain-1/nof the-voting age population: ===: 
in the "County,-with n being the number of District Courts in the: - 
County. --Plaintiffs’ Post Trial Brief at 11. 

13 

  

15 

 



  

Dallas County at the time this case was filed. On September 1, 

1989, the Texas Legislature created a thirty-seventh:State Judicial 

District-Court in Dallas County. Black residents are concentrated 

in the Central and South Central sections of Dallas County. D-04, 

Pp. 2, Map of Proposed ‘Districts based. :on =36 -District Courts. i. _f 

Evidence ‘was introduced that seven (7) Black single member ~~ 

districts of greater than fifty percent (50%) Black voting age 

population were possible. Id. at 1, 3-9; Plaintiff-Intervenor . 

Dallas {("P-I D") Exhibits 34. - Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Exhibit YE 

reflects that there are approximately 36 homogeneous precincts of 

90% Black population.. WE RE EL TL LL ei row a 

“J tiTarrant County. '~:“Plaintiffs rare- proceedingionly ‘on = =i   

behalf” of Black voters in Tarrant County. Tarrant County has a 

total population ‘of ‘860,880%x << The :.'Black population’‘af Tarrant -. 

County is. 101,183 (11.8%). There are 613,698 people of voting age, 

{7.1 

with 63,851:(10:4%) voting age’Black residents of Tarrant County. ==: = 

Plaintiffs’ Tarrant County ("Ta") Exhibit 01. LE dg un 

There are “twenty three (23) State District: Courts in 

Tarrant -County. Black residents are concentrated in the Center of 

  

"* Proposed single member districts 1 & 3 barely meet the 
Overton majority =- minority voting age population ‘requirement. 
These proposed districts contain 51.33% and 52.05% black voting age 
population respectively. 

16 

 



  

the County. Ta-04, p. 2, Map of Proposed Districts. Evidence 

was introduced that: two: (2) Black ‘single ‘member ‘districts of =: 

greater than fifty percent (50%) Black voting age population were 

possible. Yd. at Jl... cruises oo op Loans dun Fhe Pastavn noysiae oe 

..8. Bexar County. Plaintiffs are proceeding only on behalf = ::= 
  

of Hispanic: voters in Bexar County.....Bexar County has. a: total. ..- 

population of 988,800. - Its Hispanic population is 460,911 

(46.61%). There are-672;220 people: of ‘votingtage with 278,577mbined 

(41.1%) voting age : Hispanic :@ residents of Bexar 'County.e: 

Plaintiffs’ Bexar County .("B").EXhibit 01. -- = 1.oncicome oo - 

_ _-..There are nineteen (19) State District Courts in Bexar 

County. ~ Hispanic residents "are concentrated in "the: Ceéntral:and .: 

South Central sections of the County comprising most of the wz.’ ade 

red 

populationi pf ‘the City of San Antonio. B-04, 1p. >2;-Mapof += 

To 

Proposed Districts. . Evidence. was introduced «that eight (8)r + on 

Hispanic single member districts: of greater than fifty percent: hzs 

(50%) Black voting age population ‘were possible. Id. at 1. 

  

9. “ Travis County. - Plaintiffs are proceeding only on: 

behalf of Hispanic voters in Travis County. _With a total .: v- 

population .of 419,335, its Hispanic population is 72,271 (17.2%). 

There are 312,392 people of voting age with 44,847 (14.4%) voting 

age Hispanic residents of Travis County. Plaintiffs’ Travis 

17 

Ade WF 

 



  

County ("Tr") Exhibit-01... 

.-..... There are. thirteen (13) State District Courts in Travis. 

County. The largest concentration of Hispanic .residents in one -:: i... 

area, if at all, appears to be located in the Eastern portion of 

the County. Tr-04,.p.:2; Tr-05, p.1, Map of Proposed Districts. i. 

Mr. David: Richards testified’ that: in his opinion the Hispanic 

community - was ' pretty -well- ‘dispersed’ 'in-- Travis . County. 

Nevertheless, ' evidence. was _ introduced that one (1) .combined 

minority single member district of greater than fifty percent (50%)  - 

Hispanic voting ' age" population’ was ‘possible. Id. at 1. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit. Tr-04 depicts the single member. Hispanic -.. .-- 

“district -proposed for Travis County. : The Court-finds: that it-is’ 

without moment that the proposed district appears to be minimally 

contiguous. Sal aE SG PAYEE carnal Courie dda 

10. Jefferson County. Plaintiffs are proceeding:-only on- 

behalf: of ‘Black voters in Jefferson County. “Jefferson: County has. 

a total population of 250,938. Its Black population is 70,810 

AR A WY 

(28.2%). There are 179,708 people of voting age of which there are - 

44,283 (24.6%) voting age Black residents of Jefferson County. 

Plaintiffs’ Jefferson County ("J") Exhibit 01. TR 

There are eight (8) State District Courts in:Jefferson 

County. Black residents are concentrated in the Central -and South 

18 

 



  

Eastern portions of Jefferson County. J-04, p. 2, Map of Proposed 

Districts. ~“Evidence “was “introduced that two (2) Black single ~~ 

member districts of greater than fifty percent (50%) Black voting 

age population. were:-possible.::::Id. atl. = aw =a 2a Lan son Lun iatohats 

11. Lubbock: County. Plaintiffs are proceeding on behalf =» == 
  

of the combined Black and Hispanic voters in Lubbock: County. There 

is a total population of 211,651 in Lubbock County. - The ‘Black. .... -_. 

population. of: Lubbock County:-is:15,780: (7.5%); while; the Hispanic 

population is 41,428 (19.6%). There are 150,714 people of voting 

age, with .9,590 (6:4%) voting age Black: residents and 22,934 tre | 

(15.2%) voting "age Hispanic residents. The combined Binseity 

voting age npopukation” is 32,524 (21.6%). : Plaintiffs’: Lubbock 1 i:ali« 

County ("L") Exhibit 01. | seine 

~o¢ ‘There are six (6) State District Courts in Lhe Soba ons 

Crosby County ' area. ~~ The combined minority population is nor - 

concentrated: in the =zNorth Eastern, Eastern wand  South- Eastern ons 

sections of those Counties.  L-04, p. 2, Map of Proposed Districts. 

Evidence was ‘introduced : that one (1) combined minority single - 

member district of greater than fifty percent (50%) Black voting 

age population was possible. Id. at 1. This remains true when ° 

Plaintiffs controlled for voting age population of non-United- 

Statesi citizens of ‘Spanish origin. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L-11. 

19 

 



  

12. Ector County. Plaintiffs are proceeding on behalf of 

combined Black and Hispanic voters in Ector County... The :total = = 

population: of ‘Ector County is 115,374. Its Black population is 

5,154 (4.5%) and the Hispanic population is 24,831 (21.5%). There... ....  -—— 

are 79,516 .people of voting age. The voting age .population by 

minorities consists of 3,255 (4.1%) Black voters and 14,147 (17.8%) 

Hispanic voters for a combined minority voting age population of 

17,402 (21.9%). Plaintiffs’ Ector County ("E") Exhibit 01. 

7. There are four (4) State District Courts in: Ector . 

County. - Minority residents are ‘concentrated in the Southwest. 

section of the County. E-04, p. 2,. Map of Proposed Districts. 

Evidence -was -dintroduced- that —one (1) ‘combined minority single ::- 

member district of greater than fifty percent (50%) minority voting 

age population was possible. Id. at 1. It is possible to draw a. 

district of combined minerity population $f voting age even if non- 

citizen voting age=Hispanics are eliminated fromthe: calculations. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E-13. 

13.: Midland County. Plaintiffs proceed on behalf of Black  ::   

and Hispanic voters combined in Midland County. Midland County has 

a total population of 82,636. Its Black population is 7,119 (8.6%). 

and its Hispanic population is 12,323.-(14.9%). There are 57,789 ..- 

people. of: voting .age,. 4,484 (7.8%) voting -age Black voters and = 

20 

 



  

6,893 (11.9%) voting age Hispanic voters. The combined voting age :* 

population:is "11,377 (19:7%). = Plaintiffs’ Midland County: ("M")= 

Exhibit 013 0 = Co ae RE 

There are three *(3) "State District Courts~:in- Midland ::: i= 

County. :i- Black ‘residents: ‘are “concentrated ‘largely in =the Iu: 

Northeastern, East Central and Southeastern sections of Midland - 

County. M-04, p. 2, Map. of Proposed Districts. Evidence was 

introduced. that one {1):cembined minority’ single member district co -.- 

of greater than fifty percent (50%) combined voting age population‘ 

was possible. Id. at 1. It is possible to draw a district in ove 

which the combined minority population is in the majority even if 

non-citizen Hispanics of ‘voting age are-excluded.: ‘Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit M-15. 3k 5 

= YIN 
ar tn et Ya Sf = RR 

“Political Cohesion and White: Bloc Voting:i = 
  

14. Racially poldrized voting indicates that the group 

  

prefers candidates of a particular race.” “Monroe v. City oft i’ 

  

Woodville, “No. 88-4433, slip op. at 5573, (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 1989). 

  

>.* The Supreme Court in Gingles adopted the definition of 
racial polarization offered by Dr. Bernard Grofman, appellees’ 
expert. - Dr. :Grofman explained that racial polarization "’exists 
where there is a consistent relationship between [the] race of the 
voter and “the “way in which “the voter votes’ ... or ‘to put -it'i-i 
differently, where ‘black voters and white voters vote 
differently.’ Gingles, 478 U.S. at 53 n. 21. 

21 

 



  

Political cohesion, on the other hand, implies that - the ‘group 

generally unites behind a single political "platform".of :common ::. + 

goals -and common means by which to achieve them. -:Id.at 5573 

The inquiry "into political cohesiveness is..not..to be: ::.u: 

made prior to and apart from a study of polarized voting. :::i.The 

Supreme Court made clear that "[t]he purpose of inquiring into the =: - 

existence of racially-polarized voting is twofold: to ascertain 

whether minority group members constitute a politically cohesive -. 

unit and to:.determine whether whites vote sufficiently as a bloc 

usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidates." . Gin les, ox 

478 U.S. at 56. Sl EE | ok 1x 

15. Plaintiffs presented testimony of two experts. Dr.” «:. 

Richard Engseron { "Dr. Engstzom’). testified only about Harris and 

Dallas Counties. Dr. Robert | -Brischetto. ( "DE. Brischetto" yi 
LRA re TE RE SOOT IMO Or. ; (Od 

testizied concerning all othey counties at issue in this cases: 

16. Harris Coby 
  

a. Dr. Richard ZEngsiron, tostitiey on behalf of Plaintiifs 9 

and Plaintifs- Intervenors in Harris Contes; Dr. Engstrom used 1980 © SER 
de At tN 

U.S. Census: counts of total Black population by precinct to analyze 

1980 election results. For 1382, 1884, i and 1988, Dr. Zngstrom av 

used precincg voter registration estimates supplied by Dr. Richard 

Murray, a. non-testifving expert. . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit :DmT H-D8g aint 

22 

 



  

Dr. Engstrom verified or "matched" the reliability of Dr. Murray’s 

estimates and the 1980 Census counts by comparing Dr. Murray’/s:-::-—:i::: 

estimates to an Hispanic precinct voter registration list compiled. 

by the Secretary -of State. Testimony: of Dr. Richard  Engstrom... 

Dr. Engstrom testified that there was "a: very good: match... 

__b. Dr. Engstrom analyzed K 17 general elections in Harris 

County. He calculated "r" values’ between 0.798 and 0.880 for the 

17 elections analyzed.’ :Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I H-01 pp. ‘1-2. 

Dr. EngSizon’'s ¥SJr85310n mua ysle shows a strong relationship. ::: 

between race and. voting patterns in Harris County. . See. Appendix. 

A to this opinion ("Appendix"), Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I H-01 pp. 

1-2. All.of ‘his correlation coefficients’. exceed .79 (79%) except: © 

  

16 

candidate receives. Testimony of Dr. Engstrom. To put it another 

at at heh lt 

The "r" value describes the relationship between the racial’ ¥ 
composition: of a precinct -and:the: number of votes:a ‘particular: PIR 

Tire im fas 

way, "how consistently a vote for Black candidate changes :as the 7. 
racial composition of the precinct changes." Id. 

EA - . el aT v bod ong TW I Bm 
| JSR at (9 BL a “sn : te - a £ : v } JT so) aa . - San te 0 Si, pum 

i 

values for ’'r’ and ‘r[squared]’, which measure the strength of the 
correlation and linear relationship of the variables being 
examined, in this case the race of the voter and the candidate he 
supports." Overton, 871 F.2d at 539. 

18 phe "r" value is also referred to as the "correlation 

"Crucial to the validity of regression analysis are _the. 

coefficient” or "Pearson .r." A positive Pearson r shows that as: 
the percentage of minorities in a precinct increases, so does the 
support that a minority candidate receives. A Pearson r of -1 
shows the opposite, as the percentage of minorities in a precinct 
increases, “there is "decrease 'in. ‘the support that a minority: 
candidate receives. A Pearson r of 0 shows that there is no 

a3 

 



  

one. -Id., see section on Bivariate Regression under the column 

heading of Correlation Coefficient. .-- Drv: Robert -‘Brischetto ~~ 

generally testified with regard to the counties in issue other than 

Dallas and Harris County, that a Pearson. r of. 1 (100%) would show: * 

perfect correlation. He further testified that social scientists 

consider anything over 0.50 (50%) as showing a strong correlation. _ 

c. Further, each Pearson r is accompanied by an estimate 

of the likelihood that the estimate would occur by:chance. This: 

figure is known as the significance level. In the regression. 

analyses for Harris County, as well as all the counties in issue, 

the significance level was much smaller than the generally accepted 

level of extremely: high-significance of 05.” Testimony of Dr. 

Robert Brischetto; Testimony of Dr. Richard Engstrom. Dr. Engstrom = * 

testified that ithe probability that the Harris County estimates: = 

would have occurred by chance were less than 1 out &f 10,000. 

«ds + The lowest ‘r= squared for these analyses’ ig = wi 

approximately .62 (62%). This describes the percentage of the 

variance in voting behavior explained by race/ethnicity. Testimony 

  

relationship between the racial/ethnic composition of Precincts ang: 
voting bshaylor, 

§ 45 i— : : 2d : 4 . v's 1 a — 

2 A significance Tevel of: “01, for example, ‘means that ‘the 
Pearson r.in question. would have occurred by: chance only one-time“ 
out of one hundred. Sify $7 

24 

' 

 



  

of Dr. Robert Brischetto.?® Squaring these '"r" values?’ to 

calculate coefficients of determination denonstrates in the present 

case that race explains at least 62% of the variance in voting in 

all 17 elections relied on byPlaintiffs-and Plaintiff-Intervenors. . 

mre. 7. The one judicial race that did- not exceed the 79% sed 

figure actually had a negative correlation. This race involved 

Mamie Proctor, a Black candidate running on a Republican ticket . ..-. 

against Henry Schuble, -an- Anglo, for State: Family. Court 245... In... 

the 1986 Proctor race, : the correlation coefficient was -0.836 

(approx. -84%). Id. at 1; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I H-10 p. 2. _This 

reflects that, as the -percentage of Blacks in voting precincts - 

increases, Proctor’s support decreased. - :In -other: words, even 

though Ms. Proctor is Black, she did not receive the support of the -=::-. 

Black community. lenge; Sahe wis not the preferred.:candidate. of: oo. 

Black voters in Harris County. Dr. Engstrom testified on cross . :. 

examination that the: "candidate ‘of choice" was -the -candidate who 

  

* For example, if a Pearson r is .5, then 25% (5 x 5 or r 
squared) of the wvariance in voting behavior is explained by 
race/ethnicity. 

i This figure is also known as the coefficient of 
determination. It is the coefficient of correlation or Pearson r 
multiplied by itself. It shows how much or little "noise" there 
is around ‘the line of correlation or, in other words, "the :- 
percentage of variance in the vote that is explained by the race 
of the voters." Overton, 871 F.2d at 539 n. 11. 

25 

 



  

received the majority of the black vote, not necessarily the Black 

candidate. 3 = etei mmaer is gid co SERN Ruy 

f. - When Dr. Engstrom controlled for Hispanic votes, Dx. 

Engstrom’s regression analysis shows that Blacks :consistently ‘gave 

more than 97% of their vote to their preferred.candidate. - Id., see - 

last two columns. 

ge Dr. Engstrom’s homogenous precinct ‘analysis 

corroborates the results of his regression analysis.::See Appendix = 

A, Plaintiffs” Exhibit P-I H-01 pp. 1-25 -<It:' shows: that Black 

voters in Harris County -gave more than 96% of their votes to the = 

preferred candidate - of Black voters in every election except 

Proctor’s. Ms. Proctor received 5% of the Black vote. = 

“Lh. Finally, -in all counties including Harris County, = FF ne 

Plaintiffs "weighted" "precinct data ‘in torder: to: ‘account . for .: 

variations in ' the population size of “the ‘various precincts: = 

Testimony: of ‘Dr. Richard Engstrom; Overton; supra, -at 537. -Dri.ludco 
  

Engstrom testified that on the basis of his analysis the Black =i: 

community-in Harris County votes cohesively ‘in.general elections 

for State District Court Judges. : : he (5 Harris County 

Defendant-Intervenor Judge Sharolyn Wood. ("Judge Wood"), attacks: =: 

Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s proof on the following :. =° 

grounds: (1) Dr. Engstrom failed to establish the reliability of - 

26 

 



  

his data set; (2) absentee votes were not allocated to election 

returns; (3) the analysis does not reflect the effect of the influx -.. .... 

of the Vietnamese population into Harris County and traditionally -- 

Black -precincts; - and (4) .the. .analysis fails to. reflect black 

candidate successes in primary elections or uncontested races... ..:: cc 

j. In reference to the reliability of the data set, Judge" 

Wood points to numbers on Dr. Murray'’s printouts that have been’ 

written over,: struck out.or crossed through, pencil notations and 

‘other marks. This Court finds the data set to be reliable. 

: Karson. IN ¥SSponse. to the other consexns, Dr. Engstrom 

testified that: (1) primary ‘elections were not examined in Harris 

County because those elections were notfiltering out the candidate =7==: 

of choice of Black voters; (2) uncontested races do not assist 

researchers in their analysis; (3) the ‘appropriate comparison in 

Voting Rights cases is Black and non-Black; (4) while the did not: i: 

specifically control for Asian Americans; they would .be included: ic. 

in the percentage of non-Black votes; and (5) the range of absentee 

votes between 1980 and 1986 never exceeded 3.2% to 7.6%, while in 

1988 that range rose to approximately 13.6% per precinct. This: 

Court finds that Dr. Engstrom’s testimony adequately addresses 

these concerns. The Court further finds that the lack of control 

for absentee votes and ‘Asian Anericans ‘does not Sionliicanclyspes 

27 

SR, 

 



  

affect -Dr. Engstrom’s analysis. 

~l..: The State Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors argue 

that it is a candidate‘’s political ‘party and the strength of 

straight ticket party .voting- that -determines the result of any ' = 

election contest and not the difference. between the preferred = 7 - 

candidates of whites and minorities. In support .of this argument, aalivhes 

Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors point to the 1382 .and .1386 

Democratic sweep for judicial: candidates in: Harris -County- and a: cont. 

similar. Republican sweep in the years .1984 and 1988.  -n:AllZ 

Defendants attribute this phenomenon to top of the ticket straight: id 

party voting.? aE 

‘ms.>> Correlation and ‘regression: can also prove the third: wos 

Gingles prong by showing that a white ‘bloc vote exists: This is 

shown wheni the percentage of: votes : received by’. the minority . .-.< 

candidate decreases as the percentage of minority persons: ofivotingn: . 

age decreases. In other words, 'the minority candidate“ receives . :.= 

fewer votes as the percentage of non-minority persons in a precinct - 

increases.:: Regression results estimate the percentage of non- 

minority support for minority candidates, otherwise known as the 

  

2 In 1982, Senator Lloyd Bentsen was the lead Democratic 
candidate on the ballot. In 1986, Governor Mark White represented 
the top of the ticket Democratic candidate. In Presidential 
election years 1984 and 1988, President Ronald Reagan and President - =: 
George Bush, respectively, were the top Republican candidates. 

28 

 



  

Anglo cross over vote.. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I--H-01 pp. 1-2, 

column: 4. This is-:also referred to.as.the Y intercept... 

n.: Dr. Engstrom ‘calculated 'Y intercepts for- the Black +: 

preferred candidate. between 29 and 39 percent for the 17 elections 

analyzed. The highest Y intercept was 53.6%, but this percentage... .. 

of the non-Black vote was for the non-preferred candidate Mamie 

Proctor. The highest percentage of Anglo cross over votes 

received by the preferred candidate of .Black voters was 39 percent... 

See 1986 race Carl Walker, Jr., Black Democrat -against George. 

Godwin; Id. This is corroborated by a 40% Anglo cross over vote 

figure calculated for the same. race in homogenous precincts of 90% : 

or more non-Black population. Id. at column 1. “Mr. Walker was 

the Black preferred vandidate and won. - Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I H 

ig 10. Two other Black preferred candidates drawing opposition.in the and 

1986 elections lost their elections even though they had identical 

Black community support: .These.two: candidates had .;slightly=dess-=y 

Anglo cross over vote. ‘Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I-H-01 pp. 1-2, 

column 1. Five other Black preferred candidates drawing opposition: ::..:: 

in what appears to be county-wide elections lost in the -1986 

elections. = Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I. H-10.% This analysis 

  

29 

 



  

demonstrates that an Anglo bloc vote exists. Dr. Engstrom 

testified that the Anglo or white bloc vote in Harris County is 

sufficiently strong to generally defeat the choice of the Black 

~~ rd. MURR WEE REE mc 

community. -- This: Court: agrees 77 

o. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sheila Jackson Lee also testified 

about political cohesiveness among Black voters—in Harris County... 

Ms. Lee has lived in Harris County approximately 11 years and ‘has 

been a candidate in .'several-=judicial:electionsi ice Plaintiffs’: 

Exhibit P-I H-01 pp. 1-2; Exhibit P-I H=10 pp. 1-3.” She had many °* 

different endorsements ‘and campaign strategies but still 1058.” 

She testified that her loss was attributable to Ro getting enough 

white Votes. i. 1.03% ths Blech peolanze. nord bore To@t thee due Sarai 

P-- - This testimony “was supported by the deposition . 

summaries: .-of : Thomas ‘Routt, * Weldon Berry, Francis Williams -and  -- -. 

Bonnie Fitch. re Ria rrigedd 

gq. Defendant<Intervenor Wood presented’ thé: testimony:of 

Judge Mark Davidson. As ‘a hobby, Judge Davidson analyzes the - 

results of judicial elections in Harris County. His testimony 

concerned his views on what he has termed "discretionary judicial 

voters" ("DJv").? Judge Davidson testified that 15% of the vote 

  

24. He ‘defines DJV’s as voters who vote for at ‘least one 
judicial candidate of one party and at least one of the other 
party. DJV’s are also referred to as "swing" voters. 

30 

 



  

in judicial elections in Harris County were DJV’s. The remaining 

85% split .roughly evenly between straight Democrat party. and. 

straight Republican: party-voting.: Based-upon his analysis,-Judge ~~... 

behavior as it relates to :the judiciary. .in. Harris. County. t He cnt 

opines that DJV’s “determine the ‘outcome of judicial contests in 

Harris County and the DJV vote can somewhat be garnered by various - - 

campaign factors. While this Court finds Judge Davidson.to be a. 

credible witness, under controlling law, the Court finds that his -: 

testimony is irrelevant. 2 

r. “The Court further finds Defendant-Intervenor Wood's 

contention that the Black preferred candidate lost their respective ©: 7 — 

judicial races due to their failure to win the Harris. County bar. 

or preference poll or.to.obtain the Gay Political Caucus ("GPC"), 

endorsement to be legally incompetent. 

s. The complete data set used by Dr. Engstrom was used by 

Defendant’s expert; Dr. Delbert Taebel for his analysis of Harris- : 

County.: Dr. Taebel did not weight his precinct data; to account. for: 

variations in population size of various precincts in Harris County 

or any: other county at issue. 

t. Dr. Taebel analyzed 23 District Court general elections ..; -:- 

where minorities opposed white candidates in Harris County... State- I: 

31 

 



  

Defendants’ Exhibit D-05 pp. 9, 13, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 53, 61, 81, 

85, 1897-837:97,: 101,305,137, HY 11457 161, 165,173 a 170. 3r- 

Black and white voters voted differently in all 23 District Court 

elections. Id. The Black ‘preferred candidate won~ only six 6)" *~~ -- 

times.:. The Black preferred candidate won seven (7) of "11 County  : 

Court general elections...-Id. D-05-pp.-1,4~:5,:17,-21, 25,-109, 113, iuw- 

117, 121, 125 & 129. Blacks and whites voted differently in each 

of those elections... Idi=:iiDr.i-Taebel iialso ‘analyzed imine: (9)irom’ 

judicial primary elections; seven (7) for: District Court posts and ic 

two (2)-County- Court posts. Id. D«05'ppP.249,:57,765,773, 11, 145: +> 

157, 169 & 181. The Black preferred candidate won six (6) of the 

nine (9) primaries. Interestingly enough, each preferréd candidate = -t& 

winning the primary lost the general election. Id. - D-05 Pp. 61, 

59, Bl 83. 0] Rd rr a im a ie Sts 

17. Dallas County. >=: 

a. Dr. Engstrom used the same data set for his analysis 

of Dallas:County. However, the 1980 Consiis counts were updated in 

1982 and 1988 by the Dallas County Elections Office by 

reconfiguring precincts according to the changes made in precinct 
n 

4) 

lines. = Testimony of Dr. Richard Engstrom. Dr. Engstrom accepted = '° 

the updated census counts for 1982 and 1988 as reliable. Id. In 

32 

 



  

the intervening years of 1984 and 1986, Dr. Engstrom looked "for 

{] precincts -that combined or split -and: aggravated precinct counts: cao 

for those precincts. Id.” ~~: =v mmeaTr Tew fre aes 

b.” Dr. Engstrom analyzed seven (7) general elections for 

State District Court where Blacks opposed Anglos between 1980 and. =: -i— 

1988 in Dallas County. The correlation coefficient or "r" values .i:::i-- 

exceed 0.864 (86%) for six (6) of the seven (7) elections analyzed. 

See Appendix A, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-02. = Dr. Engstrom’s ..-.. 

homogenous precinct analysis and regression analysis shows a strong =. : 

relationship between race and voting patterns in Dallas County. or ws 2s 

Id., gee columns 2 & 3. . Dr. . Engstrom _testified that the - 

significance level :was much smaller than ‘the generally:accepted = 7. = 

level of :' extremely k high significance: - of .05 -and “that the =: 

probability that the Dallas County estimates would have occurred IL. 

by chance were less than 1 out of 10,000. 

‘cs. Bo The lowest! r : squared ~-for - these analyses is 

approximately .75 (75%). This figure is found from multiplying the . 

r value by itself for Jesse Oliver's judicial ‘race in 1988. This 

coefficient of determination demonstrates that race explains at 

least 75% of the variance in voting in at least six (6) of thes 

seven : (7) elections relied on by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff- = 

Intervenors.: - 

33 

 



  

d. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-02 further shows that in five (5) 

of the seven (7) elections as the percentage of Blacks increased 

in precincts, so did Black support for the preferred candidate of 

Black voters.—::See:Homogeneous- precinct analysis; column-2::~ ~rosrnas=_ . 

‘n@.,27 Bivariate regression ‘analysis reflects ‘a negative sii 

correlation. for Carolyn Wright's. judicial .race in .1986.. Judge 

Wright is a Black who ran on the Republican ticket. - She received. .. 

-1.5% :.of: the. ‘Black vote and 71s7% cof.cthe..-non-Black vote: scr: . 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-02, columns 4. & 5. -. The correlation .. ::- 

coefficient. was -0.872 (-87%). -Id., column 3. This reflects -- 
that, as the percentage of Blacks in voting precincts increases, 

Judge Wrights support decreased.’ :'In. other’ words, even though Ms. --:-ic 

Wright is Black, she did.unot receive the support of the Black 

community: Hence, she was not the preferred candidate of Black : ‘: 

voters. -in'-Dallas County. Black voters .also failed to support 

Judge Baraka, .a Black Republican candidate in 1984. 

f. When Dr. Engstrom controlled: for Hispanic votes, Dr... .: 

Engstrom’s regression analysis shows that Blacks consistently gave 

more than: 97% of their vote to their preferred candidate. Id., see _ 

last two. columns. Dr. Engstrom’s analyses shows that Blacks are 

politically cohesive in .general elections for State District Court 

in Dallas: County. gw ERY 

 



  

Gs His analysis is confirmed -by the testimony of 

Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Joan Winn White, Fred Tinsely, H.! Ron White ~~~:- 

and Jesse Oliver. : The - Exhibits “reflect that each “Plaintiff- —- 

Intervenor received 97% or better of the Black homogenous. precincts + 

and at least 83% of the votes in. precincts with Black population. : vzec A 

of 50% to 90%. "Plaintiffs Exhibit P-I D-16 - D-22a.:  r: ~~~. 

"h. ~ Plaintiffs calculated the percentage of votes for _the .. 

Black preferred candidate, Jesse Oliver, and his white opponent; tia: 

Brown, in ‘each of the proposed hypothetical singe member 

districts.’ '- “Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-12a. They . repeated . this - 

procedure for the judicial. races Anvolving “he Black preferred 

candidates in Plaintiffs“ Exhibit D-02 and Nathan Brin (an Anglo 

preferred by Black voters in Dallas County). Plaintiffs’ Exhibits -. 

D-12b,:-12c & 12d... In: each..instance,inthe . Blacki .community’s. 1° 

preferred .: candidate "received ‘a ‘majority’ of votes: in each uae 

predominately Black hypothetical district. =: ~i- woo 0 TL 

Fond Defendant-Intervenor Judge Harold Entz ("Judge Entz"), 

attacks Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors evidence on the ground 

that: (1) the data is based on total population and not voting age -. 

registered voters; (2) the analysis does not reflect changes in the 

distribution. of population over time as a result: of growth of 

Dallas. suburbs and geographic dispersal of minorities; (3) Dr. 

35 

ik!
 

4 
} 

 



  

Engstrom did not control for absentee or Oriental votes; (4) there 

is a stronger association ‘between partisan affiliation ‘and success 

then there is between race and success; and (5) the analysis shows 

what happened, but’ not'why' it happened. "In support:of--his fourth:- 

attack, Judge Entz argues that five of the seven elections analyzed ~ ic: . 

involved Black candidates who are the candidate of choice, while 

all seven -involved ‘Democratic candidates - .who . were. the Black. 

preferred candidate of -choice.: Thus; Judge: Entz- concludes: that: 

political party is a: better iprsdistor of the Black preferred 

candidate and that candidate is a victim of partisan. politics not 

discriminatory vote dilution. = 

#~§.° 'Dr. Engstrom testified>that: (1) he was never given: - 

precinct data by:race and voting age registered voters; and (2) the 

range of support for the Democrat, candidates between 1980 and 1986 

varied 10 to 17 percentage points. Thus, Dr Engstrom concluded 

that something other than just straight party voting is going on 

in judicial elections. - 'o 2: in.ongll 

kx. Dr. Dan Wiser’s testimony confirms Dr. Engstrom’s - : 

results. Dr. Wiser’'s data set was based on 1980 Census data, 

Dallas County election returns and Dallas County precinct. data 

adjusted for changes in precincts. Precincts that split were 

reconstructed by estimating the part of the precinct that shifted 

36 

 



  

to another and apportioning the registered vote based on the shift 

and past history. Testimony of Dr. Dan Wiser. The adjusted data 

was checked against the: 1986 Justice Department submissions. Id. ~~ 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I D-11. Ninety eight. percent: (98%)-of the" 

vote in homogeneous precincts .0f 90% Black voters went to the Black 

preferred candidate. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I D-11, D-16 through . 
D-23a. At least 83% of the Black community vote supported the . i: 

Black preferred candidate in homogenous precincts of between 50% 

and 90% Black. | Id. 3+ orsirmeno oT 

"1. Dr. Wiser calculates that the Asian community only 

comprised approximately 2.6% of .the total Dallas County population 

as of 1985. -Plaintiffs’:Exhibit P-I D-03. He testified that: the ::: i= 

best estimate of the growth of the Asian community between 1985 and 

the present is supplied "by. the Bureau of Census. = Plaintiffs’ = 

Exhibit P-I D-02. He believes there has only been a growth: of 

approximately 3% between 1985 and 1988 and does not agree with 

estimates of Asian ‘leaders in Dallas County. 

: m...:- Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors established the 

third Gingles prong by showing that a white bloc vote exists. The 

Y intercepts-calculated by ‘Dr. Engstrom for the Black preferred 

candidate ranged between 29 and 39 percent for the seven elections 

analyzed. - Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D-02. The highest Y intercepts were 

37 

 



  

61.8% and 71.7% for Judges Baraka and Wright respectively, the non- 

preferred candidates. 'Id. ‘The highest percentage of :Anglo cross 

over votes received by the preferred candidate of Black voters was 

approximately 39 percent. -:Id.; 1980 race -involving. Joan Winn. ..... 

White.: There are 197 precincts in Dallas County that are 90% or 

greater white population. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I D-06 & 07. 

n. This is corroborated by Dr. Engstrom’s homogenous 

precinct: analysis:and: Dr. Wiser’s analysis.-.-Id. at_column 1. . 

This analysis demonstrates’ that an Anglo ‘bloc vote exists. The 

Court finds on the basis of the exhibits. .and testimony of .Dr. 

Engstrom and Dr. Wiser that the Anglo or white bloc vote in Dallas 

County. is sufficiently strong to generally defeat the choice of the 

Black community. 

(84 « DCH 1 5 00 Anthony Clidnpagne testified that judicial elections 

in Dallas County were characterized by strong partisan affiliation 

rather than racially polarized voting. Dr. Champagne analyzed 

contested District Court general elections between 1976 and 1988. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit: P-I1:D-06-A. Dr. Champagne bases his opinion 

on the steady increase of Republican victories in Dallas County 

over time. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I D-07-A pp.1l-2. Only seven (7) 

of the contested general elections analyzed involved Blacks = .-.: 

opposing white candidates. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I-D-09-2 P.-1.. 

38 

 



  

No Black candidate running on the Democratic ticket won a general 

election... Two Black..candidates running ‘as Republicans won. Id. 

at 1. °- The Court noted, supra, that -it was the non-Black vote 

that gave rise to the success of these two candidates. “See Finding” 

of Fact l7.e. LE Lena ny heh Lapa duien Foeen FF EEE 

~"p. Dr. Taebel analyzed nine judicial elections. in which 

Blacks opposed Anglos. In eight of the nine, Blacks and Anglos 

voted differently. : State Defendants: Exhibit-D-06 pp. &;,* 13,17, "de OL 

21, 37, 69, 73, 81 & 89; See Appendix -B, Plaintiffs’ Re-Evaluation. =: & 

of Dr. Taebel’s Reports ("Re-Evaluation"). for Dallas County p.1: =" 

The Black preferred candidate won only once. Id. This sole 

victory arose in the "1988 Republican primary. Id. The Black 

choice won only five (5) of the other twelve primary and general -i --. 

District Court and Appellate ‘Court races. analyzed.  Id.jy “rons 

Plaintiffs’ Re-Evaluation p. 2. «i. EE Phx ES AIR Le 

18. Tarrant County. Hy pla 7 Leck cnniiaiges en aun ae 
  

-a+«<.Dr. Robert Brischetto ("Dr. Brischetto") testified 

concerning on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors in 

Tarrant County and the remaining counties at issue. = He weighted 

his analysis in all remaining counties. Dr. Brischetto used - Black 

population data by ‘precinct from ‘the 1980 Census: for thirty four 

39 

 



  

(34) precincts in Tarrant County where precinct lines had not 

changed. He analyzed four (4) elections in:which ‘Blacks ‘opposed i" :: 

Anglos in Tarrant County (three judicial elections ‘and ‘the 1988" ~*~" 

Democratic Primary). See Appendix-A, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta-02. 

b. In Tarrant County and ‘other ‘contested counties where -‘°- 

there was a large representation of three ethnic/racial groups, Dr. ~~ =~ 

Brischetto used multiple regression analysis. Dr. “Brischetto™ ~~~ 

testified that this approach shows the effect of the percentage of 

Hispanics in precincts, for example, upon the votes received by a =¥ """ 
a - 

minority candidate, when accounting for the effect of ‘the 

percentage of Hispanics. The statistical calculation that shows 

the effect is called the "Partial r.” = °% 

c.. Dr. Brischetto calculated "Partial r* values of -87%, 

_.  -80% and 90% respectively for the three judicial ‘elections 

analyzed. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta-=02."" “There was @ negative ~~ ''“:‘: 

correlation in the 1986 Salvant - Drago race and the 1986 Sturns ="'J 

Goldsmith race. Salvant and Sturns ‘were ‘Black candidates running-~+<'--- 

as Republicans. They did not receive the support of the Black “'° 

community. Id. Approximately 93% of the Black voters in precincts 

analyzed voted for Drago, while approximately 85% of Black voters © 

voted for Goldsmith. Id. The likelihood ‘that the estimates would 

occur by chance (significance level) was much smaller than .05.-~- 

40 

 



  

Testimony of Dr. Robert Brischetto. Dr. Brischetto’s regression 

analysis shows a strong relationship between race and voting 

patterns in Tarrant County. The strength of the correlation is 

dependent on the size of the number not on the positive or negative 

value assigned to it. The negative correlation in the Salvant and 

Sturns races merely reflects that as the percentage of Blacks in 

voting precincts increases, the support for Salvant and Sturns 

decreased. 

d. The lowest r squared for these analyses is 

approximately 64% for the 1986 race for Criminal District Court 

Place 1. Race explains at least 64% of the variance in voting in 

all elections relied on by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors in 

Tarrant County. 

e. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta-02 further analyzes the Jesse 

Jackson Democratic Presidential Primary in 1988. The Partial r for 

Jesse Jackson was 98%. Although the Jackson race was not a 

judicial election, its analysis corroborates the judicial elections 

analyzed. However, Dr. Brischetto testified that he would reach 

the same conclusions without considering the Jackson contest. 

E. Dr. Brischetto’s homogenous precinct analysis 

corroborates the results of his regression analysis. Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit Ta-02. It shows that Black voters in Tarrant County gave 

41 

 



  

more than 89% of their votes. to the preferred candidate of Black 

voters in every election analyzed. wim TIT 

..g«.. Dr. Brischetto also recompiled and reanalyzed Dr. --- 

Taebel'’s work concerning Tarrant County. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta- = 
10. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta-10 compiles all ‘of Dr. 'Taebel‘’s ~~’ 
analysis of countywide elections for judicial positions when Blacks i= 
opposed. Anglos. Dr. Taebel also found. negative correlation of 

-63% and -60% in the Salvant and Sturns elections’ respectively. “49%. 
Id. While “these correlation figures are not as high as those 
found by Dr. Brischetto; ‘they still reflect a-strong correlation. 7 
See Finding of Fact -16.b. last ‘sentence..... ...- i LE eh ne 

h. Dr. Taebel used bivariate regression in his analysis. 
Dr. Brischetto is of the opinion that had Dr. Taebel wused - 

{)
 

multivariatecanalysis; his correlation estimates would have been - 
lore precise. Furthere Dr.  Brischetto believes that the r values: “h»* 

Li
f 

would have:-heen higher, because the analysis would have eliminated 
the effect of Hispanics. While Dr. Brischetto did not agree with 
Dr. Taebel’s statistical methodology, he reviewed Dr. Taebel'’s work 
because Dr. Taebel’s data set was more complete. dt BS 

hd. : This Court - finds, on the" basis of all” Gf Dr. ~ = 
Brischetto’s analysis, the Black community in Tarrant County votes: 
cohesively in general elections for State District Court Judges .- 

42 

 



J++ The Court further finds that the Anglo: bloc vote in 

Tarrant County is sufficiently :strong to: defeat ‘the ‘minority - 

community's preferred candidate. In the three general-elections: 

analyzed, the preferred candidate -of Black voters: lost -every time.  : : -- 

This is ..true -even though each of:the ‘Black preferred.:candidates 

had a sizeable percent of Anglo- eross over votes. .Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibits’ - Ta-02; Ta-10. ° The Y intercept reflects that "Anglo ~~ 

support. for.the.Black preferred candidates was between 42% and 49%. 

Id. Ta-02.::-- 

.k.. The testimony of Plaintiff and sitting District. Judge 

Maryellen Hicks -corroborates:-this analysis. Judge-Hicks:is-Black. 

She testified that the only time: she ran ‘against an "Anglo in a - 

countywide judicial election she lost. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta=10, .. 

-County.Criminal Court Place 1. She feels that she lost ‘because she ':: 

could not convince Anglos to vote. for. her. -. She also believes that 

she could aqiot win if she had ‘Anglo opposition because of the Anglo. = 

vote. Coury nl 

+l. “Judge Hicks testified that implementation ;of single" 

member districts in Tarrant County had .immediate effects. . .Before 

the districts went into effect, only two Blacks had been elected 

to School Trustee positions. Since single member districts were 

implemented, “two Blacks and one Hispanic have consistently been 

0 Sl i 0  



Trustees. Two Blacks and one Hispanic also took office on the Fort 

Worth City Council as -a ‘result of single member districts being 

implemented- for that body. Further, after single member districts 

were established for State Representative offices, two minorities 

were elected to the Texas House of Representatives.?® 

~m. «In the five primary and general judicial: elections- = 

involving Black candidates analyzed by Dr. Taebel, the Black choice .. 

won only once. State Defendants Exhibit D-39 pp. 1, 29, 33,37 & 

57; See Appendix B, Re-Evaluation for Tarrant County p+ It-is” 

clear that'Blacks and Anglos voted differently in these races. Id. 5 

In District Court general- elections that did not have “a Black — 

candidate; the candidate preferred by Black voters won three (3) 

of five (5) times. Id. D-39 pp. 13,17, 21, 25 & 61; Re-~Evaluation 

at 1-2.- In three other judicialrgeneral elections ‘the:candidate i s— 

of choice of the Black community won:all three times. 1d. D-39 pp. 

9, 49 &= 653- Re-Evaluation ‘at 2. “Iwo ‘of "the "three were.Appellate 

Court elections, while the: third involved the County Court at Law. 

Id. The tandidate of choice: also won all three primary judicial 

elections analyzed by Dr. Taebel. 1d. D-39 pp. 5, 41 & 49. 

  

*.~After the linés were redrawn in 1982, one minority has: been 
elected: =  



19. “Bexar County." 
  

‘-a. Dr. Brischetto‘-based his analysis of Bexar County on - 

Spanish surnamed registered voter data by precinct from the office ~*~ 

of the Secretary of State of Texas. Dr. Brischetto testified that 

this data-was: the closest measure -of actual registration data by 

precinct. Dr. Brischetto used bivariate regression analysis in | 

Bexar County because “0f the ‘very small: Black population in~the‘ 

Counter: ~Litanmin li wlihal Soy i. Rll ld re ne ee 

-b.- He analyzed six (6) general ‘elections from 1980 to 1988 =: 

in which Hispanics opposed Anglos. See Appendix A, Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit- B-02.:- He calculated  "r" values for- Hispanic preferred -- 

candidates between 86% and 88%.: Id. His regression ‘analysis shows 

a strong relationship between race and voting patterns in Bexar 

County. : In all but’ one race, "as the percentage ‘of ‘Hispanics 

increasedp-support for the Hispanic preferred candidate increased. ' 

Dr. Brischetto testified that-the probability that correlation of 

this size "would happen by chance was much ‘smaller “than the 

generally accepted level of .05.% 

c. In the 1982 Barrera - Stohlhandski race, the Hispanic 

  

The significance level for each election is .0000. 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B-02. Dr. Brischetto testified that there was 
practically no [or zero] probability that these correlations would 
happen by chance. 

26  



candidate, Roy Barrera, Jr. running as a Republican, received very 

little Hispanic support. The correlation coefficient for Mr. 

Barrera-was: -80%. Id. "As the percentage of Hispanics in voting 

precincts increased, Barrera’s support decreased. Barrera received 

approximately 17% of.ithe: Hispanic vote. Id. He was not the i::s’ 

preferred candidate of Hispanic voters in Bexar County. ....:. <=: 

cdi: The. lowest :r :-squared for :'@ these “‘analyses . is: .... 

approximately 64% for Mr. Stohlhandski, an.:Anglo :running :as-a would 

Democrat in:the 1982 Barrera. - Stohlhandski race. . The highest rr. ::.ic 

squared’ ‘was “77% for the 1986 Cisneros - Peeples race. - This 

demonstrates  in-Bexar County-that: race explains -at-least 64% to-77% 

of the variance in voting in all-six’elections. 

e. Dr. Brischetto’s background and homogeneous precinct 

analysis confirm the fact that Hispanics:are politically cohesive ., 

in Bexar County. .'Dr. Brischetto lives in Bexar. County and analyzed 

election behavior: there in a Section 2 case involving the San 

Antonio’ River Authority.:- Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B-16.: There he 

found ‘polarized voting ‘along racial and ethnic lines in a  - 

nonpartisan election involving low profile campaigns.:. Dr. 

Brischetto’s homogeneous precinct analysis shows that Hispanic 

voters in Bexar County gave 73% to 93% of their votes to the 

preferred candidate of-Hispanic ‘voters in every election.-.  



f. Dr. Brischetto controlled for absentee votes in 1988 

elections based on allocated data from the Bexar County Elections =: :- 

Administrator." He testified that the additional ‘data ‘did not ::-- 

change his conclusions... 

~-.g._. Plaintiffs presented evidence. from four hypothetical rr: 

districts carved out of existing precincts for each of the six 

elections analyzed.~ Plaintiffs’ Exhibits..B-12a- - 1l2e.. - Almost ... 

always, the Hispanic candidate who actually lost at-large would _ 

have won if he had run from a hypothetical majority Hispanic «ui. 

district. In one case, the 1988 Republican primary between 

Arellano and White, the -Hispanic.candidate won .in only three of the........ 

four hypothetical districts. Id. B-12e. coma i ur Ee mITRRETT SAUTE 

h. In the 1988 Arellano - White Republican primary for the -. 

150th District Court, Arellano..ran..as .ani:appoiated:: incumbent. cros 

White, an-rAnglo, decided late in the campaign that he did not want 

to run for office. It was too late to withdraw, but. he endorsed: g=t 

his opponent Arellano. White nevertheless -won. Adam Serrata Judas 

testified in his deposition that this was a classic example of-rriz 

polarized voting. Deposition Summary of Adam Serrata ("Serrata 

Depo."). 

i. Other testimony suggests -the same conclusion. Judgesu@:. 

Anthony Ferro testified ‘in his deposition.that he:ran for County #n:.=-  



Court at Law four times “in Bexar County. He won two races were he - 

did not have Anglo opposition. Deposition Summary of Anthony Ferro 

("Ferro“Depo.") at 1. “Both Messrs. Serrata and Ferro testified 

that it is not possible to get elected in Bexar County to the 

position of District “Judge without ‘Anglo “Support: Id.; Serrata "~ 

Depo. i fis LET tg SS Lanny Gonos 

““943~ Pr. Brischetto ‘further concluded that the Anglo bloc , 

vote in Bexar County is sufficiently strong to:defeat-the Hispanic:f:ions 

community’s preferred candidate. ''In the six electiéns-analyzed, 

the preferred candidate of Hispanic voters won only once. See 1988 

Mireles - Bowles race. The Y intercept reflécts that non-Hispanic 

support’ for the Hispanic preferred candidates was between 18% and --mar~ 

35%. It is ‘not surprising that the one Hispanic candidate of 

choice who won also received the highest percent of “Anglo cross — 

Y Th. 

over votes. Era eny 

k. Judge Ferro testified that he has only been able to get: vwide 

elected when he did not have an Anglo opponent. Ferro Depo. Judge 

Paul Canales testified that voters’ in Bexar County ‘pay attention 

to the race/ethnicity of candidates in -judicial elections. - 

~-1. The effect of fairly drawn single member districts has 

had a positive effect on minority election results in Bexar County. - 

Immediately ‘after the création of single member districts in White : =r:  



v. Regester, Hispanics were elected to the Texas. House of 
  

Representatives. Further, immediately .after .the. City Council .- .=.- 

implemented ‘single member districts, the number of minorities on 

the San Antonio City Council increased. Serrata Depo.; Ferro Depo. 

judicial elections involving Hispanic candidates in Bexar County. 

State Defendants. Exhibit D-07 pp. 2-5.4&..7-28; See Appendix B, Re=- - PR 

Evaluation for Bexar County p.1-2. In the twelve general elections 

analyzed by Dr. Taebel, the Hispanic preferred candidate won three =. :..; 

(3) times. ': 1d. D-07 ‘pp. ‘4, '5, 7, 15-16, 18-21 & 25-28; Re- 

Evaluation at 1. Only one of those was a District Court election. .. .... 

1d. D-07 at: 5. The Hispanic choice won-six (6) out of 18 primary =u iu" 

elections. Id. Re-Evaluation at 1-2. 

320.anTravis County. 
  

Sca.nppDr. Brischetto analyzed three (3) 1988 countywide =v ied - 

judicial. elections in Travis County: one primary election for the - 

345th District Court and two County Court.at Law general elections. 

Dr. Brischetto testified that there has only been one Hispanic - 

Anglo District Court.election between 1978 and 1988. =.In that .race; 

the Anglo won. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Tr-11; Testimony of Jim 

Coronado. Mr. David Richards testified that the Republican party: ~=-  



is insignificant in Travis County. Hence, Mr. Richards concluded 

that the Democratic Primary is the true testing ground for opposed 

candidates in judicial elections. 

b. Dr. Brischetto—--used "Hispanic~™ ‘population data by ~~ 

precinct from the. 1980 : Census reconfigured ‘to 1988 "preéinct 

boundaries. He based his polarization -and homogenous precinct: 

analysis ‘on: total population figures for Blacks, Hispanics and 

Anglos in approximately 178 precincts =f{virtually-ald:of tthem)<in ©:on: 

the County. Amalia Rodriguez Mendoza, the Travis County: Registrar. : .o- 

of Voters, provided the data. 

--C. Dr. Brischetto’s multivariate or multiple regression 

analysis shows ‘that the Hispanic’ ‘community in Travis-County is: 

politically cohesive, when the effect of the Black vote is 

considered. '.Dr. Brischetto calculated "Partial r" values-of 84%, rs ii = 

85% and 90% respectively for the three.judicial elections analyzed. 

See Appendix A, Plaintiffs’ &Exhibit: Tr-02. The Hispanic preferred” 

candidate received at’ least 77% ‘of ‘the Hispanic wote "in one’ 

election?’, 93% in the Democratic Primary election and 95% in the 

Garcia - Phillips race. Id.. The likelihood that the estimates 

would occur by chance (significance level) was much smaller than 

  

"she 1988 County Court at Law race between Castro Kennedy 
and Hughes. Castro is the Hispanic preferred candidate. 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Tr-02.  



.05. Testimony of Dr.. Robert Brischetto. Dr..  Brischetto’s ... 

regression analysis shows a.strong relationship between race and ..... 

voting:patterns in Travis County. - Sah Eh RR ERE 

d. The homogenous precinct analysis for Travis County... _... 

establishes ‘a similar pattern... Plaintiffs’ Exhibit: Ta-=02.: It: 

shows that Hispanic voters ‘gave more than 63% and as high as 90% 

of their votes to the Hispanic preferred candidate. 

e. Dr. Brischetto also reanalyzed the same three elections 

using bivariate regression: analysis based upon voter registration i: .«: 

data. = ‘See Appendix “A; "Plaintiffs’ Exhibit "Tr-19.- '° ' These 

correlation figures -are ‘very close to those Saloulated uEing 

multivariate analysis, ‘and clearly reflect strong correlation: = See ~iv&& 

Finding of Fact 1650, last sentence. With either data set; Dr. . 

Brischetto’s analysis shows that-as the percentage of Hispanics im. ied 

precincts. increase, so does- support for the Hispanic: preferrad "i. 

candidate.” The:r squared figures all exceed approximately 63%. 

...£. "The Hispanic preferred candidates took the majority of: 

the votes from Plaintiffs’ hypothetical districts even though they 

lost countywide. Plaintiffs’ ‘Exhibit Tr-12. REET LAG 

2g... The State Defendants were concerned that Plaintiff's i: . 

did not analyze Statewide judicial or legislative elections. See 

gon 

Cross examination of Jim . Coronado; Cross examination of Dr; — "=" 

x . 
Judo dad d \TDA  



Brischetto: Dr. Brischetto testified that Plaintiffs focused on 

local elections when that data was available and these ‘elections 

were not reached in Plaintiffs’ hierarchy of priority. He further 

testified that the elections analyzed were the closest in nature 

to District Court elections. ‘Dr. Brischetto felt that once he had 

three elections he could determine -a sufficient .pattern.,... This =. 

Court agrees 2% = wifliswraig-t sen. | on 2% 72h 

-“h.. The:State-Defendants attack:Dr. :Brischetto”s analysis + wa: 

on the ground that he :did ‘not “take "into account: '(1)..absentee 

voting; -and (2) the number of -non-United States citizens, Blacks 

or Anglos with Spanish surnames "in Travis County. = 

voier Pr. Brischetto controlled for absentee:votes in 31988 =r Ba 

elections-in Bexar County. He testified that Bexar: County had the 

highest absentee voting than anywhere‘in the State.: He conclunded:-:c In 

in his’ Bexar County analysis that absentee voting did not change .. iv 

his conclusions. See "Findings of ‘Fact 19.f. This: Court::finds :: 

that the results would not be significantly different: in Travis :— ani: 

County. LE IE cs SRR BO ten nor ; 1 1 

. I Spanish surname counts were based. on persons who 

identified themselves in Census counts as being of Spanish origin. 

  

28 Gingles itself relied on only analysis of three:elections 
in Senate District 22 (1978, 1980 & 1982) and House District 21 
(1978, 1980 & 1982). Gingles, 478 U.S. at Appendix A.  



While the Court recognizes that the Census definition. of Spanish : 

origin includes many parallel ethnic backgrounds, this Court finds 

that the probability of-overlap of Black and/or White voters is 

very slight. : i ES PRN. Rr GRR 

k. Finally, the-State Defendants claim that the analyses :@ . rms 

of the ‘Democratic Primary between’ ‘Judge ‘Gallardo (the: Hispanic .-...: 

preferred candidate) and McCown is: misleading. :Witnesses for the’ ® 

State Defendants testified that Judge Gallardo lost because he was... 

a bad ‘judge. - Depositions “of “Becky Beaver & Fernando Rodriguez; cri’ 

Testimony ‘of ‘David’ Richards. ""While this may. be true, under -.-- 

controlling law, it is the correlation between_the. race of the - 

voter and the selection.of certain candidates that is:crucial to ‘cur: 

this Court‘’s inquiry. Gingles, 478 U.S.- at 63. 

l. The Court further finds that the Anglo bloc vote in 

Travis County is/csufficiently strong to defeat the minority 

community's preferred candidate. = The preferred candidate of:-in 

Hispanic ‘voters lost each election analyzed. Two of the Hispanic .niv. 

preferred candidates received approximately one third ‘Anglo cross  -.. 

over votes. Plaintiffs’ “Exhibits’ ‘Tr-02; Tr-19. The other 

candidate received only approximately 14% Anglo .cross: over votes. - -. 

Id., Tr-02. al lire PEATE Le 

m. In each of the hypothetical districts, the candidate =: ::  



of choice of the Hispanic community received the most votes: in two 

districts ‘the candidate of choice received a majority. 

n. Dr. Taebel analyzed the same three elections analyzed 

by Plaintiffs’ expert. State Defendants Exhibit-D-08; See Appendix -- 

B, Re-Evaluation- for: Travis County p. 1l.® His analysis confirms in. :: 

that in these three races whites and Hispanics voted. differently -... .. 

and the‘Hispanic preferred -candidate lost each time. Id. D-08 PP 

33, 37 .&:41.. Theo Hispanic: preferred candidate: -fared-better in =: :.u: 

Appellate. elections: winning one: primary .runoff and :two general :.:.::: 

elections. Id. D-08 pp. 25, 29 & 45. Hispanic and white voters 

did not vote differently din these'three.election contests but did 

so in-the:i19847 and 1986 ‘Democratic: primary for : County Court  ~._ 

nutbers 1 and 7. Id. D=08: pp. 33.&:41s.7. vn 

Ne ERR, RR ENF SLT nc vine i a I 

21. Jefferson Countv. 
  

“@a.t "Pr. Brischetto used Black population data by precinct’... 

from the 1980 Census for all of his analysis-din. Jefferson County. 

He testified that population had changed -very-little in Jefferson 

County. Plaintiffs’ Post Trial. Brief at. .95....0nly those precincts eile 

that retained unchanged boundary lines were used in his analysis... 

b. -He analyzed five (5) Democratic primary elections, two 

(2) Democratic primary:runcffs and the 1988 Presidential Democratic i i=: -  



primary. See Appendix A, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J-02 pp. 1-2. Four 

of the five primaries analyzed involved Justice of the Peace 

contests. - The fifth was for a County: Court at Law post. ~ Dr. 

Taebel did not analyze any of these elections. State Defendants’ -—--- 

Exhibit D-09. “Each of the Justice of the Peace election Precinotsm ri sy 

covered~at least an entire city which are the -largest urban areas 

of the County. Precinct "1 ‘covers: the City of ‘Beaumont,’ Texas. = = 

Precinct 2 covers the City of Port Arthur, Texas.  - Tom Hanna: 

testified ‘in his Deposition that ‘running for- office from these -- 

precincts Is equivalent to running at large from. the two cities. 

Dr. Brischetto testified that “there “were mo: primary or general-- 

elections for District Court seats that pitted Black against Anglo. =i. 

C. “Dr. Brischetto: used multivariate regression analysis 

in his examination of Jefferson County: separating out’ the ‘effect. 

of the'Hisparic vote! ‘He calculated "Partial r" values between 66% .& 

and 97% for the judicial primaries and runoff elections analyzed. 

id. The partial r for ‘the Black: preferred candidate in the 

Democratic Presidential Primary, Jesse Jackson, was 97%." Id. The 

likelihood that the estimates would occur by chance (significance -- 

level) was much smaller than .05¢- Id." Dr. Brischetto’s regression 

analysis’ shows a strong relationship between race and “voting :'~ o: 

patterns. in Jefferson County. The Black preferred candidate  



received a clear majority of Black community support in at least 

five of. the seven judicial contests ‘analyzed. -Id., multivariate = 

and homogeneous analysis for 1972 to 1978. In the 1982 primary for 

Justice..of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place- 2,:-the Black preferred --- 

candidate Cannon received:approximately 51% of the Black community 

vote, while two opponents split the remaining 49%. 

receive. .a..majority.::0of. .the Black: community vote. - ‘In the 1986------- 

Democratic Primary for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place -2; er Wis 

the Black: preferred candidate, Wilmer Roberts, only -received 47% 

of the Black-vote (40% ‘in homogeneous precincts). The ‘other 53% ~ 

(60% inrhombgenecdus precinctsy was split: between four candidates. 

John Paul Davis, a Black attorney -from Jefferson Country, testified iL: 

in his Deposition that he supported the white candideateé because she aC. Hc. 

was the most diberal at the time he made his choice and Mr. Roberts nc: tad 

announced late: in the race. + :iaLiffse 

~@. The r squared figures range from 44% for one race (1972: 

runoff) to 94% for three races (1978 &-1982 ‘judicial primaries and 

1988 Presidential primary). It is clear from Dr. .Brischetto’s 

analysis of voting patterns in Jefferson County that as the 

percentage of Blacks increase in a .precinct, the percentage of YT iT 

support for :the Black preferred candidate increases.  



“Ke. Dr. Brischetto examined the votes cast in’ a 

hypothetical district for the 1978 Democratic Primary between Mr. 

Davis and -an- Anglo opponent. ‘The analysis shows that Davis 

received more votes in each precinct and a majority. of the vote in ~~ 

the district.. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J-09. 

g. State Defendants argue that the three races analyzed - :-: 

in 1982,:13986 “and 1988: either: show no~racial polarization. or a === 

victory for the Black preferred candidate. This Court disagrees. 

As the Court discussed, supra; the: Black preferred candidate was 

supportéd--by a majority of ' the Black community in | the:--1982: ~———- 

Démocratic Primary. See Finding.of Faet-2l.c.- With reference: to 

the 1986 ..Democratic Primary, ‘the <Tourt: finds that ‘the State: 

Defendants’ evidence is ‘not -conclusive that the Black community i: 

eitheriwould not have cohesively supported Wilmer Roberts” had: he 

announced earlier or that the Black commuriity cohesively. supported. i {: 

some other:candidate.: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 'J-02; Finding of Fact. d 

21.d. The Court further finds that while Jesse Jackson:may:have ::::. 

carried Jefferson County in: the .1988. Presidential Primary, that 

fact alone is a far cry from whether the Black preferred candidate 

is successful iin Jefferson County. oo © = Ti 

h: State Defendants further point to the 1984 Democratic 

Primary between John Paul Davis and Donald Floyd, both of whom are-  



Black, ‘to ‘demonstrate- that the Black community is not politically 

cohesive in Jefferson County. .While Mr. Floyd won: the primary:and -.: . 

the election, Defendants did not demonstrate that the Black 

community split their vote or--failed to support one candidate.over . 

- - a 

4.” This Court: finds “on the basis of. the foregoing: - 

discussion” that the Black community in Jefferson County votes 

cohesively in judicial elections. i 

j. In:at least five of the seven elections analyzed it is 

clear that blacks and whites voted differently and the preferred 

candidate-of Black voters:lost-every time. - The Black: communities. 

candidate’ of choice received. 25% to 41% of the Anglo ‘cross over Twi" 

vote in election years 1972 and 1974. The percentage dropped 

thereafter to a low of 2% for Wilmer Roberts .in 1986 and a’ range 

of 7% to 10% for the other:two judicial races. Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit’ J-02. Although the:Black-preferred candidate received 70%. .-_ 

to 93% of the Black community vote in five of the seven elections 

analyzed they still lost countywide. SETH 

k. The Court finds that the Anglo bloc vote in Jefferson 

County is sufficiently strong to defeat the minority community’s 

preferred candidate. 

'v1::7No Black attorney has run for the position of District --  



Judge in Jefferson County. Deposition Summary of ‘John Paul Davis. 

Mr. Davis “feels that Black: lawyers do not run for the-office 

because of the high probability of defeat. - Id. 

m. Implementation -of. .single - member ‘legislative and 

preferred ctandidates- to those positions. Deposition-Summary of vl. 

Thomas Hana. i. lvmracis Lhe ois avmsmang aes ent 3, 50 Sa 7 ET0 

1:22 v= Lubbock County. : 
  

Dr. Brischetto used population data from the 1980 

Census precinct boundaries-for his-analysis ‘in-Lubbock County. He 

initially -based -his review ‘on 30 '0fI'76 precincts which” had not. iii 

changed between 1980 ‘and the relevant elections analyzed.c He -ii&-: 

analyzed additional precincts that he was ‘able to’reconfigure:by - 

use of Census blockimapsz?? iv ©: >i oii The Likoinood: thee 

©: byu-Dr. Brischetto relied on appellate ‘judicial contests. fii: 

He testified that no“relevant "local judicial contests involved ‘a =i: - 

minority opposed by an Anglo candidate. He further testified that-' = 

he did not: analyze local Justice of the Peace races because: the 

  

* He analyzed 48 of the 76 total precincts in the 1986 
primary, 44 of 76 ‘in -the~1986 runoff, 48 in the 1986 general i ug 
election and 47 in the 1988 general election. See Plaintiffs’ Post 
Trial Brief at 109 n. 55.  



Justice of the Peace precincts were not at least as .large as a -. 

major city.: He analyzed two (2) Supreme Court general elections, 

two (2) Democratic primary elections and two (2) Democratic primary 

runoffs. . See Appendix A, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L-02, pp. 1-3.  _ ____ 

c :C..:Dr. Brischetto used bivariate, multivariate regression 

and homogeneous precinct analysis in his: examination: of. Lubbock .....- 

County. ::The bivariate-:analysis-produced correlation coefficients 

in excess.of 87% with a corresponding r square figure of 16%... 14 

He used multiple regression analysis to show that Blacks 

Hispanics vote together. This analysis revealed that the 

groups : favored .the same.candidates in. each election. .. Id. 

lowest partial r calculated for Hispanic voters was 78% -in the “1986 I 

Democratic Runoff for Supreme Court place 4: The lowest partial aie BL 

r for Black:wvoters was 56% in the 1986. Democratic Primary for the +. .,. 

same Court prior to the!runoffcelection. The likelihood that the :. . == 

estimates: would - occur: by .chance (significance level) .was- much 

smaller than .05. Id. "Dr. Brischetto’s regression and homogeneous 

precinct analysis ...shows a strong relationship between ... . .. 

race/ethnicity and voting patterns in Lubbock County. The 

combined minority preferred candidate received a clear majority of. .. 

combined minority community support in each election analyzed. Id. 

»d. It is clear: from Dr. Brischetto’s analysis of -voting  



patterns in Lubbock County that as the percentage of minorities 

increase in a precinct, the percentage of support for the minority 

preferred candidate increases. This Court finds that Blacks and. 

Hispanics are cohesive .as..a-.group' im" Lubbock" County “judicial 

electiénsuzcy ov lnuane ed LT DEOpEaLe 

© e.*Maria Luisa Mercado, a Hispanic attorney from Lubbock. cai: 

County, testified that Blacks and Hispanics work together .in-the =: . 

County on many significant: issues. :Deposition Summary:iof "Maria . 

Luisa Mercado. ("Mercado Depo"). 

"f. The State Defendants point to the 1984 race for Justice 

of the ‘Peace ..between Sedeno, a Hispahnié¢ tandidate running as a = = 

Democrat, ~against:‘a Black ‘Republican candidate,” McKinley Shephard: =:--:. 

to illustrate that Blacks and Hispanics do not vote cohesively as. oi 

a group. "The Black boxes voted for Mr. Shephard. Mercado Depoiiiiey = 

at 2. (Dry. Briscthetto testified that this race was not analyzed 

because the Justicecof the Peace precinct:in question split the«s=sib + 

City in half. "It did not include a large-majority of the County. +: ib 

or a large metropolitan area." Testimony of Dr. Robert Brischetto. : 

This Court” finds -that the Sedeno - Shephard race does not 

illustrate that Blacks and Hispanics do not vote cohesively in at- 

large judicial elections. The Court further finds that Blacks and 

ae -— i  



cohesiveness of the two groups-when either opposes an Anglo.3%. :_iaunic 

~..geeo Minorities and. .whites voted differently in each: 

election- analyzed. - However, :the: preferred minority candidate won -: 

on two. of six occasions. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L-02, p. 2, 1986 

Primary for Court of Criminal: Appeals, Place 1 ‘and 1986 ‘Runoff iv. ti: 

In one of - those two races,’ : the minority preferred candidate: -.. 

received 46% of the Anglo cross over: votes. from homogeneous: white: 

precincts of 90% to 100% white population. Id., 1986 Runoff. The 

minority communities candidate of choice received 39%, 40% and 41%: : = 

of the Anglo cross over vote, respectively, in three other 

elections-and: still lost. Id.;-1986 General Election, 1988. General -- 

Election; and::1986 “Democratic: Primary, «Supreme Court, Place "4,~< a7" 

respectively. The Court finds that the Anglo bloc vote in Lubbock 

County ds. sufficiently strong to defeat the minority community*smenner 

preferred: candidate: 

h. Defendants "argue that Justice Gonzalez may possibly: tae 

have received more Anglo votes in the 1986 Democratic Runoff with =: 

36% than either of his three opponents, assuming the remaining 64% 

of the Anglo votes were evenly split. Defendants conclude on that 

basis that Anglos did not vote overwhelmingly against Justice == 

  

*® state Defendants further point to Hispanic - Black state 
representative races in Lubbock County in 1984 and 1986.  



Gonzalez. - This Court disagrees. Assuming arguendo that Defendants 

assumption is correct, the Court finds that Anglo’s did 

overwhelmingly vote against Justice Gonzalez even if they did not 

vote overwhelmingly:--for a different candidate. "> =.= 

“c4i5us Dr. -Brischetto testified concerning some countywide :i#ii= 

elections in--Jones v. City of Lubbock,:727 F.2d 364, 383 (5th Cir, i: v=: 

1984) .- "His ‘conclusions in Jones corroborate his testimony in: this: =.- 

CRS@., ov. .iius wisi lazuwrg. fer SHAIYZSO LW (4) NHubrsame: aomnh Lanse | 

je-iiw Ms. ‘Mercado: testified. that-::Black and Hi$panic nai: 

candidates have not been successful in at large elections. Mercado ~~ 

Depo. -:She:testified that-she-tarried all minority boxes and zero 

Anglo boxes*”in her 1978 bid for City Council. Id. Blacks and . 

Hispanics have been successful running for School: Board: and: County: se 

Commissioner!s positions after the ‘implementation of single membegf---:@ 

districts.c Id. Si dle Tadtinony of cir RrAaschert 

Hiukiiv-Dr. Taebel only-analyzed. two. of the same Appellate sr-ani: 

Court contests analyzed by Dr. :Brischetto. :. State Defendants” 

Exhibit D-10 pp. 17 '& 25.- In both, minorities-and whites voted += 

differently and the minority choice lost. : Similar results were 

obtained in two County Court-at Law General Elections analyzed by 

Dr. Taebel. Id. D-10 pp. 5 & 9. However, in those two races there 

was no minority candidate. = See ‘Appendix B, Re-Evaluation of  



Lubbock County. 

>» 23. Ector  - County, > wom 
  

a. Dr. Brischetto used population data from the 1980 

Census precinct boundaries to-analyze 24U0f the 31 total precincts:=c:ici: 

in Ector ‘County which had not changed between 1980 and the relevant 

elections analyzed. As in Lubbock County; he:relied :on:appellate:: i." 

judicial contests. He analyzed two (2) Supreme Court General 

Elections and two (2) Democratic Primary Elections. See Appendix : ° 

A, Plaintiffs” Exhibit E-02, pp. 1-2." He testified that mo County 

or District Court contests tnvolved a minority opposed byian Anglo: =... 

candidate. :- - A Cre Sy RL ee CARRIE Ef ft SRR std ES NR TL 

pbs =Dr. Brischetto used the same statistical analysis used’ 

in Lubbock County.” = Bivariate analysis was used to separate.'the. .: == 

white and:aminority votes. (Testimony: of ‘Dr. Robert Brischetto. == 

Multivariate analysis was used ‘to separate "the.'Black :and:Hispanic: onc. 

vote. : :Id..+ - The bivariate : analysis ‘produced correlation : - 

coefficients in excess of 78% with a corresponding r square figure _ 

of 61%. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E-02, pp. 1-2. Multiple regression 

analysis ‘shows that Blacks and: Hispanics vote together.: : This =:« 

analysis revealed that the two groups favored the same candidates 

in each election. Id. The lowest partial r calculated for  



  

Hispanic voters was 46% in the 1986 Democratic Primary for Supreme 

Court Place 4. The lowest partial r for Black voters was 60% in 

the 1988 General Election for Supreme Court, Place 3. ‘The 

likelihood-that the estimates would-occur by chance (significance 

level)- was: much smaller than .05. Testimony of Dr. Robert 

Brischetto. 

=.C3Ti7A clear majority of the combined minority community -- 

supported_.the..preferred minority -candidate ‘in: each election i: 

analyzed. Even in the race for Supreme Court, Place 4, Justice 

Gonzalez, received 42%. of the Hispanic vote and 65% of the Black - -- 

community-vote.-: Id: ‘Dr. Brischetto’s regression and homogeneous 

precinct analysis noshows~ ha~~ strong ' relationship :. between 

race/ethnicity and voting patterns in Ector County. : The lowest -: 

level of combined support: is reflected as 50% in. the Democratic: 

Primary for Supreme Court, Place 4. Id., Homogeneous precinct 

analysis, p. 2. Dr. "Brischetto attributes the lack:of. stronger -. 

Pn TEU il 
— a ——— 

minority group cohesiveness in that race to the.fact that one of. -...- 

the candidates in _the Primary was . from Ector County.  Id., 

Candidate Gibson. However, in. the General Elections for 1986 and - 

1988, homogeneous precincts of 80% or more combined minority gave 

more than 80% of their vote to the minority preferred candidate. 

d. ‘It is clear from Dr. Brischetto’s analysis of voting 

65 

 



patterns in Ector County that as the percentage of ‘minorities: 

increase in'a precinct, the percentage of support for the minority 

preferred candidate increases. This Court finds that Blacks and 

Hispanics are cohesive as a group in Ector County judicial 

elections. he, les May, By Fol fat cdi he Uh Gnu at 

“revs TheMi 

election ‘analyzed. ~“"Minorities: supported ‘the minority preferred: ~:~ 

candidates™in much greater percentages than Anglo voters. - The. - 

preferred minority candidate won only one race analyzed. :':See 

Plaintiffs”’"Exhibit"E-02, ip 2," 1986 Primary for Court of Criminal - -. 

Appeals, Place 1. - state geen ig AER An. i We EERIE TR Se EE 1 

f.- Minorities. have been elected to Justice of the Peace = += 

and County Commissioner’s positions from predominately minority 

precincts. -. Deposition Summary of Lawrence Leo Barber ("Barber 

Depo. ") Ybor i Jalni di FF: EOETRRES, 

-"g. "Dr. Taebel’s analysis of the same two Appellate Court 

contests confirmed Dr.“Brischetto’s ‘analysis. State Defendants’ '=- 

Exhibit D-=11 pp. 21' & 37. In both, minorities and whites voted 

differently ‘and the minority choice lost.” "Dr. Taebel further 

analyzed five (5) General Election judicial contests ‘that did not - 

involve positing an Anglo against a minority.’ Id. pp. 5,;:9,:13, 

29 & 33. Minorities and whites voted differently and the minority  



preferred candidate lost in three of the five. See Appendix B, Re- 

Evaluation of Ector County. 

24... Midland County. 
  

a. Dr. Brischetto based his analysis on population data 

from the 1980 Census.. He analyzed 11l.of.the .36 total precincts: for 

1986 and -10 of 36 for 1988: that had boundaries that had not 

changed.... : He... was ..also - able: : to. reconfigure: boundaries. for . br OW; 

precincts in 1986 and 23 in 1988. Testimony of Dr. Robert.  ..: 

Brischetto. He relied on appellate races and one Justice of the 

Peace race since there -have -been no -local-countywide- election =~ =~ 

contests’ in which minorities opposed Anglos. The :Justice of the 

Peace race encompassed the entire City of Midland. Testimony of 

Aquilla Watson. He analyzed three elections: dn -total.: See 

Appendix A,:Plaintiffs’ Exhibit M-02. Dr. Taebel. did not analyze 

the Justice-of the Peace contest. 

b. Dr. Brischetto used bivariate regression :analysis in 

Midland .. County. The bivariate analysis produced correlation 

coefficients in excess of 89% with a corresponding r square figure 

of 79%. 1d. Better than 85% of the combined minority voted for 

the minority preferred candidate in each race... Id. The likelihood 

that the estimates would occur by chance (significance level) was  



  

much smaller than .05. Testimony of Dr. Robert Brischetto. Pri 

Brischetto’s regression and homogeneous precinct analysis shows a =. ~~ 

strong relationship ‘between race/ethnicity and voting patterns in 

Midland County. - ~ 

c. It is'clear: from Dr. Brischetto’s analysis of voting .i. cC. 

patterns in-"Midland County that as the percentage of minorities. :: :: 

increase:in a precinct, the percentage:of ‘support:for the minority = ==o 

preferred ‘candidate increases. This Court finds that Blacks and: 

Hispanics "are cohesive as a group in‘: Midland County judicial +. ce 

electibng: iost iv borh poiwars cleo Llons 

--d. + It--is further clear that minorities and: -whites voted —— 

differently in each election analyzed. - Minorities supported the. 

minority preferred candidates in much greater percentages than 

a Anglo voters. The preferred minority candidate lost each race 

analyzed despite the large ' percentages of combined minority 

support. Id. Hise ro on 7 Dierwlin inet ly 

e. This analysis is supported by Dr. Brischetto’s analysis 

and testimony in Lulac v. Midland ISD, 648 F.Supp. 596, 600 (W.D.: 

Tex. 1986), aff'd, 812 F.2d 1491 (5th Cir. 1987), vacated 829 F.2d. 

546. 7Plaintiffs’ Exhibit M-05. 

f. -Aquilla Watson testified-that she received very few . © 

Anglo votes. She .only carried four: (4) of the thirty-six (36) 

68 

 



precincts. Only one of the four included some Anglo cross over: 

votes. Testimony of:Aquilla Watson. =‘Minorities have been elected: i ~v~: 

to the School Board and County -Commissioner’s Court from 

predominately single: member districts... .. Id... -. oo ....Lo.. IL ULC 

..g5> Dr. Taebel analyzed four :{4) judicial contests inwhich »~-  . 

a minority. candidate .ran. against one. or more white candidates. .. 

State Defendants’ Exhibit D-12 pp:795 21, :25 & 29. Minorities’and += + 

whites voted differently and the minority choice lost in the two 

General ‘Elections analyzed. Id. pp.:.25'& 29. The minority choice i; 

also lost in both primary elections, but there is some indication 

that minorities and some white voters voted the same. :-Id: pp: 9 = 

& 21. See "Appendix‘Bj Re-Evaluation® of Midland County. -.=0 #77 iii 

27 ACCESS TO THE POLITICAL PROCESS 

History of Discrimination - 

+25. ~The effect of past discrimination against:Blacks.and =.:t- 

Hispanics in-areas such as education, employment and health :in most 

of the Counties in question is either well chronicled or" 

undisputed. : See, e.g., Lulac v. Midland ISD, 648 F.Supp. 596, 500   

(W.D. Tex. 1986), aff’d,:812 F.2d 1491 (5th Cir. 1987), vacited 829 ! 

F.2d 546; Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir:    



  

1988), reh'g denied, 849 F.2d 1240,. cert. denied, _ --- U.S. 
    

(1989); Lipscomb v. Jonsson, 459:F.2d -335 (5th Cir. :1972); Graves 
  

v. Barnes, 343 F.Supp. 704, 725 n. 15, 730-34 (W.D. Tex. 1972), 
  

rev'd in part and remanded sub nom, White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 
  

(1973), on remand, 378 F.Supp. 640, 644 (1974); Terrazas Vv. 
  

  
  

. Clements, 581 F.Supp. 1329, 1334 (N.D.: Tex. 1984); United States 

v. Texas Ed. Aqgcy.; Etc., 564 F.2d :162,:163 (5th Cir. -19779), reh'q - = 
  

denied, 579 F.2d 910 (1978), cert. denied, 443. U.S...915. 197K) nna a, 

Blackshear ‘Residents Organization v. Housing Auth. of City Of nx 
  

  

Austin, #347 F.Supp. “1138 (W.D. Tex. 1971); Jones v. City of 

Lubbock, 727 F. 2d 364, _383..{5%:h.. Cir, - 1984); -United- States wv. 
  

  

CRUCIAL, 722 f. 2D 1183, 1185 (5th €ir.: 1983) See also Plaintiffs 
- xed Sev r in 

and Plaintiff- Intervenors : AEShilbite reflecting... social 
oor the 

-t Ati ted IT 

gtratificat Con. 

26.1: This history touched upon many:aspects of the livesrof. 

minorities iin the Counties in. question-‘including their- access: to: 

and participation in the._democratic system governing this State." 

and their socio-economic status.’ "The administration of -justice 

in Texas was overwhelmingly dominated by Anglo males in 1968, and 

the overall pattern [had] changed “very little" by 1978. 

PlaintifLs: -General Exhibit ("Gen") 02, Texas: The State hi Civil | 
  

  

Rights (Ten Years Later, 1968- =1978) A Report. of the Texas Advisory 

) ~~ -— a 5 - Bm A gt ji O20 Ee 

+ 3 WO OR IPL NR LOR LEE RARER el 

70 

 



Committee to the United States Commission ‘on Civil ‘Rights- at 22- 

(1980); City of Port Arthur, Texas v. United States, et al., 517 
  

F.Supp 987, 1020 (D.D.C. 1981) (three judge court), aff’d, 459 U.S. ~~ 

159 (1982):-: -—- ----- 

Enhancement 
  

27. Candidates for District Court must run for a specific 

Judicial District Court .seat.-- This is equivalent - to a numbered . 

post system.’ District Judges must be nominated in the primary by 

a majority of the votes. 

~ "This provision insures that-essentially white-voting--- 
majorities have a ’'second shot’ at [minority] 

“candidates who' have failed ‘to muster a majority: Of ~:<ii: 
the votes in the first election. Time and again, in 
election after election, minority candidates win a 
plurality in the first election, only to lose the 

runoff in highly Faciall®y polarized" voting." gaviarnrng “a. 

Testimony “of ' Dr. Chafles 'Cotrell:at™:491, Hearings ‘Before ' the 

Subcommittee on ‘Constitutional ‘Rights’ of the Committee on™ the =v: 

Judiciary, United States Senate {94th Cong. lst Sess.) S. 407, S. 

903, S. 1409, S. 1443 (1975); Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Gen-03 at 491. 

  

2 "A numbered-post system requires a candidate to declare for 
a particular seat on a [G]overnmental body. The candidate then 
runs only against other candidates who have declared for that 
position. “The voters then have one vote for that seat. The system °° 
prevents the use of bullet, or single shot, voting. Campos, 840 
F.2d at 1242 n. 1 [citing Gingles, 478 U.S. 38-9 nn. 5 & 6].    



  

Finally, the size of at least five of the nine target counties - 

further enhance the. problems that minority candidates face when i 

they seek office. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Tr-15 shows that Harris, 

Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar _and Travis Counties - have : very - large 

populations. .See also Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P-I D-4.. Fey TE le Bb In ni 

SE ainkiYE8IA8CING rr Erie allow Ohman ppm 

28. Slating has been defined as the creation: of-a- package rx 

or slate of candidates, - before filing: for: office, by an . 

organization with-sufficient strength to make the election merely 

a stamp of-approval: of the ,pre-ordained candidate group. Overton, 

871 F.2d at. 534. .-.Dr. Wiser depicted the Republicans Party in:. @- 

Dallas County as a white-dominant slating group. .This Court finds -.: 

that such. characterization is at odds: with the governing law and : EIS 

  

facts of-this case. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors did not . = 

present- evidence. of slating--in Harris, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, 

Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and Midland Counties. 

=. Racial Appeals ot re mar rnd Srave 

~29.- _ Plaintiff-Intervenor for Dallas County,. Joan Winn 

White, ‘argued that racial. appeals were injected into her 1980 

judicial race against .Charles Ben Howell when an advertisement he : 

72 

 



  

ran made reference to his opponent (Ms: White) as the "affirmative 

action appointee." Plaintiffs Exhibit P-I D-30. -The Court notes ------ 

and Ms. White testified that the term "affirmative action" is used 

in reference to sex as .well as race. The Court finds that there 

is nothing “inherently: racist about ‘referring to -an ‘affirmative = ic 

action judicial -appointment. 

=30. ~‘Plaintiff-Intervenors from Dallas County also argue - 

that racial appeals were inserted into the 1986 election between = 

Royce West: and John Vance and the 1988 Republican Primary between 

Larry Baraka and Brook Busby. This Court ‘agrees: “In the West - 

Vance race; Mr. -Vance-- made a -racial--appeal- by: inserting his- 

opponents picture in & campaign: advertisement financed by ‘Mr. /o Tenn 

Vance'’s campaign. In the Baraka - Busby race, Ms. Busby campaigned 

~ with literature pointing out that her opponent was a‘'Black Muslim. 

Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors did ‘not present ‘evidence of 

racial~appeals in the“ remaining Counties at. issue’: - 

hl Owed oS fon : = 

.--Electoral Success- 
  

"31." Since 1980, seventeen Blacks have run for State 

District Court Judge in Harris County. - Only 2- (approx. -12%) won. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H 07. Seven Blacks have opposed Anglos in 

District Court General Elections In Dallas ‘County and won only two 

73 

 



  

elections . (29%) .:- Plaintiffs’- Exhibit D-09. ~ However, neither of 

these candidates was the -candidate of. choice of the Black 

community. =~ Only one Hispanic candidate of choice won in Bexar 

County in six Hispanic. - Anglo elections. ‘Plaintiffs’ Exhibit"B- - 

11. The Black community’s preferred choice achieved the District = -- 

Court bench only once .out_of three. elections sWhen Blacks ran-....: 

against. Anglos in Tarrant: County. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ta-07. 

Only one Hispanic . candidate ever. ran -against.-an Anglo. for..a.-: 

District Judge seat.in Travis County. The Hispanic:candidate lost. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Tr-1l. No minority candidate-has run for the 

office of District Court. Judge in Jefferson County. John Paul 

Davis testified at his deposition that the at-large --system 

discourages eligible Black attorneys from running because the 

sought: appointment to the District Court bench. rDeposition Summary - - ~ 

of John Paul . Davis: ("Davis Depo."). : Similar testimony was 

elicited on behalf of Plaintiffs in Lubbock County. Mercado Depo. 

No minority candidate has run for District Court Judge in Lubbock, 

Ector or Midland County. 3 

32. State Defendants argue that the eligible. pool . of 

minority lawyers, .rather -than eligible minority voters, . is the 

appropriate reference point for evaluating the extent of electoral 

74 

chance of success 'is.:.so:slim. . At: least! three.:Black, attorneys i. .. 5 

 



  

. success. “State Defendants’: Exhibit D-04. -.- The Court motes that: ::: 

the two cases relied. upon by the State involve Title VII issues-and:in::=- 

do not address the relevant statistical pool in a § 2 case. See -- 

Richmond wv. J. A. Croson Co., 109 S.Ct.-706, 725-26 (1989); Wards. 
  

Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio;: 109 S.Ct. 2115;-2121-22+¢1989). State Liii-   

Defendants recognize. that the pool of eligible lawyers is small, 

due in part, to. historical discrimination. .The-Court finds ‘that =: ":: 

even if there .is some relationship between the low number of 

minority judges and: the number of eligible minority. lawyers, that = . mu.” 

fact does not explain why well qualified eligible minority lawyers 

lose Judicial elections, o.oo al Lr LST LI en a DS ei 

Responsiveness -:-''- -&- Feds nmi, inner 

33:1 -<This Court cannot find "anything in: the record ;to= ily, 

suggest a lack of responsiveness on: the part of sJudges in any ‘of |< not 

the Counties rin question to the particularized.needs of members of -liere 

the minority community. 

~Penuousness 
  

‘34. Several reasons were offered for the maintenance of the =: i=: 

at-large system. State Defendants and :Defendant-Intervenor Wood 

argued ‘that (1) judges elected from smaller districts-would be more - 

75 

 



  

susceptible to undue influence by organized crime; (2) changes in 

the current system would result in costly administrative -changes - 

for District Clerk’s offices; and (3) the system of specialized 

courts. in some .counties would disenfranchise all voters rights to: 

elect :judges..with jurisdiction- over -some matters. :Plaintiff- 

Intervenors, HLA, allege that the at large scheme. was.adopted .with.... . 

the intention-to-discrimiante against Black voters in violation of 

the Fourteenth Amendment :to =the United: : States: :Constitution:- Lhe bumvden 

~.35<::=Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Thomas 

Phillips, testified that the purpose of Article 5, Section 7a(i) 

of the Texas~Constitution was’ to creatd the Judicial -Districts: 

Board which: could equalize the -dockets .of: District Judges... To == 

further that goal, Article 5, Section -7a(i) requires that judges. . .-- 

< i be elected from districts no smaller -than a county. Apparently, = —-— 

the rationale ‘for such provision is that District -Judges:should:not-.::- 

be responsible: to voters over an area smaller than an area where 

they have primary jurisdiction: « ‘i= urd 

~36.:. Plaintiff-Intervenors offered the Deposition summary 

of Senator Craig Washington _.in_ support of their claim. that 

discriminatory intent was _ the ..focus of. the..legislative 

deliberations surrounding the passage of Section 7a(i). = The Court 

notes that Senator Washington sat:on the Conference Committee and 

76 i, 

 



  

signed the Conference Committee Report recommending: the: adoption: 

of the Senate Joint Resolution containing the :exact language: of ~==7: 

Section 7a(i), Tex."S.J.-Res.-14,:69th Leg.: (1985). ' See Defendant - 

Intervenor Wood's Exhibit 59. Subsequently, Senator Washington on.. ::... 

the Senator: floor voted for:the adoption of ‘S.J. Res 14. i:Id. "The ==. 

Court further notes that three Hispanic Senators voted-in favor of 

S.J. 14: Senator Barrientos; Senator Truan and Senator Uribe. ~~ rrr 

37. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have the burden == .. - 

to establish that the at-large system is maintained on a tenuous 

basis as a pretext for discrimination. Overton, 871 F.2d at 535. 

While the Court does not find that the present system is maintained 

on a tenuous ‘basis -as “a pretext for ‘discrimination, the Court is ~~ 

not persuaded that the ‘reasons:offered for its continuation are ---:: 

compelling. ral St FE Tian, AL ia Sand HOT. 

1384  Under:‘a'-single “member scheme "or some other 8&cheme- gie- 

Judges: may. be made responsible to voters over an area no smaller - ir 

or larger than the area where they have primary jurisdiction.. This ::icn 

Court finds ‘no reason why R115 Judges’ cannot exercise - general - -.. 

jurisdiction over their geographic area of responsibility. The 

Court "further finds -that- administrative - functions and ‘jury 

selection could continue to be-done on a countywide basis. /~ VIED Od 

--39. Our legislative body has seen fit in the past to create Et Tmt 

77 

 



  

in some counties specialty courts. In the mind of this Court this 

is wrong. Judges of civil dockets or judges of criminal dockets: --'- 

have equal access to legislation and published opinions. They are. 

not intellectually inferior to judges who hear civil, criminal and - 

domestic .cases. The body of law is large, but is: handled capably - + 

and well by most judges _in this .State who hear .all. types.: of 

litigation. Lawyers specialize. Judges are capable of rendering 

fair, honest and just:decisions:without concentrating in one:narrow :-- 

field of law. IER RE SUS eT RN 

~:~~=-~~ . STATE DEFENDANTS’ ANALYSIS 

| ETE To : : es r " HE A h = General a TEE % : Fa Fs Fo iv 3 Ta : ¥ - “AT Ti = Tio we nn Ei 

40. : State - Defendants argue that the Supreme Courts 

incorporation in Gingles,-of- the Senate Report accompanying the - 

1982 Amendment to § 2, signals a. return.to the Supreme Court’s pre-- 

  

Gingles analysis in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S 124 (1971).: .In - 

Whitcomb, the Supreme: Court. rejected a racial: vote -dilution   

challenge.to: an at-large system for electing state ‘legislators; 

essentially on the ground that partisan preference -best accounted .- 

for electoral outcomes in Marion County, Indiana. . The Court in 

Whitcomb concluded that there was no indication in the record of 

that case-that Blacks were being denied access to the political: . 

78 

 



  

system. 

41... This Court is not convinced that the State Defendants 

are making the correct ‘call. ''Inany event, the Court finds that 

this Court’s analysis of the Senate factors applicable to -the. 

present case point -to-' the ‘continual effects eof:-historical : 

discrimination hindering the ability of minorities to participate * 

in the political process. -1i =. Jani ool ili hl TL Sr mr meer er 

42. Next, State Defendants are of the opinion that there :. 

are really two questions ‘before this Court, -depending on what 

electoral” stage "is being analyzed. At the primary stage the 

question is whether the minority candidate of choice in the 

Democratic Primary is- prevented more often than not by ‘a Democratic 

white bloc ‘vote from being the party’s nominee in- the General 

Election. “State Defendants’ Post Trial Brief at'9. “At the General “.V 

Election stage the question’®becomes whether' thére “is -a pattern of 

substantial'desertion from the Democratic party by white voters to 

vote for a Republican candidate, thereby denying victory to the 

. 
— 

minority candidate of choice. Id. at 10. This Court -finds such - 

a distinction unimportant. ‘Assuming the first two elements of the 

Gingles test are met’ and the Senate factors point to vote dilution,” 

it is unimportant whether a white bloc vote, which is sufficient - 

absent special circumstances - usually to defeat the minority’s 

79 

EE | 

 



  

preferred candidate, takes place at one election stage, both stages 

or by Democrats or Republicans. ee id. 

43. The issue of partisan voting was before the Supreme 

Court in-Gingles. -:The Court-had no difficulty-concluding that 

voting polarized along racial, not partisan, lines. Gingles, 478 

U.S. at 61-62. Party affiliation is_simply: irrelevant under. the -.: 

controlling law. = Further, "the addition of irrelevant variables 

[to regression or statistical analysis] distorts the equation and 

yields results that are indisputably! incorrect under § 2 and the 

Senate Report." Id. at 64. 

ND izStatigtieal’= > ont ow 
  

+44, © The complete :data:-set used by:Dr.: Engstrom in Harris 

and Dallas Counties was used by Defendant’s expert, Dr. Taebel for. - ..... 

his analysis of those Counties. Dri :TPaebel’'s data set for analysis 

in the ‘other: seven counties. appears to beivery similar. He did. 

drop homogeneous precincts from his analysis if: there was more than. ; 

a ten percent (10%) change in precinct boundary.census data since 

the 1980.Census counts. . Dr. :Taebel analyzed :both primary and: 

General Elections in not only minority —-.:Anglo contests, but also. . 

minority Republican candidates opposed to white candidates and 

white - white contests. He also analyzed elections in which the 

minority preferred candidate ran unopposed. This Court finds that 

80 

 



  

unopposed election contests and white versus white contests are not 

germane in this Circuit to this .Court’s: analysis.  Westwego 

Citizens For Better Government v. Westwego, 872 F.2d 1201, 1208 n. oa 
  

7 (5th Cir. 1989); Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d. 1240, 1245+ += 

(5th Cir. 1988), reh’qg denied, :849:F.2d 1240; cert. denied, _ conoid 
  

  

u.s. -1 (1989); Citizens For a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, 
  

834 F.2d 496, S03. {(5thilir. 1987) i=: 3 1 =r ~¢ vfromie 

phriot (Uy ing CONCLUSTONS. OF LAW ovo 5 o Ses ing 
  

"1. This’ Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, 18 U.S.C. § 1432 and 42.U.S.C. .§-1973C. : Venue is proper in’ :- 

this District: pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). "=. = -coowes 

“2. It is ‘settled in ‘this Circuit that-§ 2 of -the Voting nzz= 

Rights Act:applies tor the :judiciary.'  Clhhisom wv. ‘Roemer, 839 F.2d! —.22 
  

1056 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, sub nom, Chisom v. Edwards, 109 
  

S.Ct. 310 (1989) (Chisom I). :. However, it isrclear that at-large ‘vin f CO
 

judicial:elections may not be considered per:se violative of § 2... no. 

Furthermore, the Court holds that § 2 applies:-:equally as well to - 

State ‘District Judicial elections as it does .to appellate: -:na: 

elections. *? 

  

* ~~state Defendants argue that State District Judgeships 
cannot be analogized to legislative or ‘appellate posts, which by i= nc 
nature ‘are:characterized by collegial decision making. While the :: was 
Court recognizes: that State District Judges:: function as sole, 

81 

 



  

Standard Under The Voting Rights Act i BX Frm Sas 
  

"3. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 
  

92 L.Ed.2d 25 1986), the Supreme Court construed Section 2 of the: : ~ 

Voting ‘Rights Act, as amended, to require a three-part threshold::: b= 

test to-demonstrate a violation of Section 2. The minority group 

must be able to demonstrate thats 3) it is Suifigiently 1277s and 
a sa — = 

geographically compact’ to constitute a majority in a single-member a 
fe cevrr 1A mes 

district {"Gingles "7 (2) it is politically cohesive (Gingles Ati 
== 

2"); and (3) the white majoity’ votes ‘sufficiently as 2 bLOE golem 

enable it <in “the “absérice 6f special circumstances - usually to 

defeat’ ‘the-minority’s preferred candidate (Gingles 3"). “Gin gles) =h=S 
all 

i <5 Af 00. = NTA Lt. 

478 U.S. “at~50-52. Failure to ‘establish: any “one of the: three; 
or the 

threshold criteria is fatal to Plaintiffs’ case. Overton; 871 F. .2d 
&: Ten Le 3! I BLS SIN i. % Its al 

at 538". a Hie usb fl eal ly axe eI Ln Hy naj 0rity 
TR IE BR HEEL RIED) SHEN » LI LC TT ENRDY PIOViIE LO: Funes VOTING 

ra. “However, Plaintiffs do not achieve victory by satisfying: © 

the three ingles factors alone. Monroe Vv. City of Woodville, No. id 
  

88- 4433; ~gTip op. at 5571, (5th Gir, Aug. 20, 11989). Instead, 

Plaintiffs must “Prove. under the totality of the ‘Circumstances- that 

  

independent decision makers, the Court concludes that there is no :vt: 
indication that Chisom’s extension of §°2 to judicial elections was 
meant to be limited to collegial judicial bodies. 

  

82 

 



  

as a result’ of the challenged at-large system Plaintiffs do not 

‘have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes: 

and to-elect-candidates of their choice. ‘Id. at 5571; Gingles, 478 

U.S. at 44. The Senate Report which accompanied.the 1982 amendment 

to § 2 specifies certain objective factors which typically may be :+ic 

relevant to a 

  

"In White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 
L.Ed.2d (1973), the Supreme Court applied what has come to:be:known- cra 
  

as the "results test" indicating that a violation of § 2 could be 
proved by: showing discriminatory effect alone. (Emphasis:added.) : 
Congress made clear by the 1982 amendment to § 2 that the "results 
test" -is the relevant legal standard to be applied by this Court. --- 

- Typical factors include: og rn GE IR SEE Shed I Rt fu 

"1. the extent of ‘any history of official 

"2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the 
state or political:subdivision is racially.polarized; - =: === 

§ 2 claim.’ - S.Rep. No. 97-417 (1982) (hereinafter ..c 

=X discrimination in-the state or political ‘subdivision that touched =: i: 
the right of the members of the minority group to register, to - 
vote, or otherwise to participate.in the democratic process; i. .7u& 

*3. the extent to which the state or political 
subdivision has used unusually:large election districts, majority _.s:: a 
vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting 
practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for 
discrimination against the minority group; 

"4. if there is a. candidate. slating process, whether. . 
the members of the: minority -group have: been denied: access: to that: - 
process; -- 

"5. the extent to which members of the minority group. iu: 
in the state or political subdivision bear ‘the. effects of: 
discrimination: in such’ areas -as-education, employment and health, 

+4 

("
 

which hinder their ability- to. pariicioate Stigetively in £he.. Lie. 
political process; 

"6. whether politiony campaigns have been characterized: ny gi 
by overt or- subtle racial. appeals; 

"7. the extent to which members of the minority group 
have been elected to public Office in the jurisdiction. 

3 — ap 4 ] — - 

83 

 



  

S. Rep.). This list of factors is neither comprehensive nor 

exclusive." “There is no requirement that any particular: number -=:: 

of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or 

the other. "--Gingles, ‘supra, at 45 [quoting S.Rep.:at 29]. 

:5. Gingles 1 requires proof that.the minority population = 

is sufficiently large and. geographically compact to constitute a -- 

majority in a single member district. Gingles, supra, at-50.- To 
  

satisfy the Gingles 1 requirement, Plaintiffs must be :able to draw. 

a single member :district in which a majority: of the: voting age a: : 

population is minority. Overton, 871 F.2d at 535. Plaintiffs . _ 

have satisfied this ‘requirement with regard to all of the nine... .. 

targetr counties” at issue 'in’this case... The minority population 

is sufficiently large and .geographically compact:to.constitute a 

majority in at least one -single -member district; i:Black, Hispanic. 

or combined, in each of the nine counties at. issue in-this case. 

a er eg 2 TEC Fa ~ ur . % -— wy CLrTY FTI rT wie ol 3 ad i. ' iy ' : 

  

=~"Additional factors that in some cases have ‘had probative 
value as pare of IP iatnciirs’ evidence to establish a violation 
are: Sho : z 

whether there is a significant lack of responslvences 
on the. part .of elected officials to the particularized needs of the 
members of the minority group. 

"whether the policy underlying the state or: political 
subdivision’s use of such ... voting practice or procedure is 

Co 
IY 

tenuous... S.Rep. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 28-29 (1982), reprinted = 
  

in 1982 uU.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 177, 206-207. 

35 
S. Rep. No. 97-417 (1982). 

84 

 



  

6. Evidence of racially polarized voting "is the linchpin 

of a ection 2 vote dilution claim," Citizens For a Better Gretna 
  

v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987) and is 
  

relevant to establishing two of the three elements set forth in the 

Gingles decision -= the minority groups political ‘cohesiveness - 

(Gingles 2) and the ability of the white majority usually to-defeat ~::o- 

the minority’s preferred candidate (Gingles 3). Westwego Citizens 
  

For Better Government v. Westwego, 872-F.2d 1201, 1207 (5th Cir. 
  

1989) [citing:Gingles,:supra, at:56]« These factors:rare usually 
  

established by statistical evidence of racially polarized voting 

by the voters. in the. relevant political unit.” Campos v. City of 
  

- Baytown; 840. F.2d 1240,7:1243' (5th’' Cir. 1988), reh'gidenied, 849 == 
  

F.2d 1240, cert. denied, - U.8.-:.:-.(1989). 
  

*7.7-In analyzing statistical data, the best-available -data “- 

for estimating the voting behavior of various: groups! in the 

electorate would come from exit polls conducted upon a random 

Ti = . no he 
Bde O30 fm tS Pogo AE 

sample of voters Futveyed: as: "they. deave the polling: Place -on 

election day, but such | evidence was: not. introduced. at trial. Se 
P & is 

Chisom Ya. Roemer, No. 86- 4057, “slip op. aC. 11 (E. Di La. Sept 13, 
  

1989) tam. 11); Defendant- -Intervenor Wood’ s Ex. 40. The best 
  

available data for estimating the participation of -- various groups 

in the. electorate is Sign-in data contained in the official records 

85 

 



  

of registered voters. - Chisom II, slip-op.-at 12.- The best 
  

indicator of participation is obtained by-dividing the - number of —- 

persons who signed-in to vote by the number of persons. in the 

voting: age population... Id. at .12. EY 

:8...... Absent .an exit poll, sign-in data and voting age 

population data, . analysts: employ : the ‘bivariate - ecological 

regression technique to estimate the voting behavior of various - 

groups. in. the electorate.? .JId..at 12. ...:z.... s 

=9.77 :For purposes :of ~political cohesiveness and racially 

polarized voting, examining only those elections that ‘had a 

minority member as a candidate, is the proper method. of analysis. -... :: 

Campos, 840: F.2d at 1245. : In order to.:show cohesion; the proper ~~ 

standard is ‘the same as. Gingles: whether the minority group : -:- = 

together- votes in a cohesive manner for therminority: candidate. ..i: 

Id.” In counties where-=-Plaintiffs proceed on behalf of a combined 

i . = £ ~~ - ~~ Poe oN . - ey - v7 vg i - - 
2 Saget nl EO Sate Ini Le TTS Cnr Ly LIVE 
  

** Like the Court in Chisom II, this Court is not convinced 
that precise correlation between the race of voters and their 
voting preferences can be made on the basis of the statistical 
analysis presented. However, no better data is provided, and the 
Court has given the statistical data considerable weight. See 
Chisom—IT; slip: op. meas 

  

  

ce ‘The Court in Campos | Hediected the City of: Baytown’ Ss argument 
that in order to show cohesion when there are: two minorities that _ 
make up the minority group, Plaintiffs must ‘show first that Blacks -- 
are cohesive, next, that Hispanics are cohesive and AR, that 4% 
Blacks and: Hispanics together: are cohesive. : Campos, 840 F.2d at .: =: 
1245, nrascn : 

86 

 



  

minority, if the statistical evidence is that Blacks and Hispanics 

together vote for the Black or Hispanic candidate, then cohesion 

is shown. Of course, if one part of the group cannot be expected - 

to vote with or .does not wvote-with the other part; the combination "~~ 

is not oohesive. JA. UL rning Tu tae freak bi md Breen oe SRST IS 

10. “In evaluating the:statistics necessary for Plaintiffs:i: Ca. 

to prove racial bloc voting, ‘this Court is bound by recent Fifth -. == 

Circuit authority to consider statistical: evidence from judicial Z0E&]. 

elections and from exogenous: elections.?® oi ili: Tai of nach sace ane 

11. This Court is satisfied that the statistics relating to 

exogenous elections in’ the present case qualify as a sufficiently 

"local appraisal" to-establish some degree of racial bloc voting: =i: =r 

12. This Court concludes under the controlling law that the :: ©= 

i — statistical” evidence: i furnished by: the -expert witnesses for ~c 57 

Plaintiffs“ and Plaintiff-Intervenors to .-be legally: competent and: «:+- 

highlysprobative. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 52-54; Overton, 871 F.2d 

  

See Chisom II, slip op. at 40; Citizens for a Better 
Gretna, 834 F.2d at 499. "Exogenous" elections are those which 
overlap the boundaries of the relevant unit. _ "Exogenous" elections @ an 
are contrasted with "indigenous" elections which involve only-the  i=z.:=o 
geographic unit at ‘issue. - ‘Westwego, 872 F.2d at 1206 n. “10. =:=: 
County-wide'elections represent the relevant geographic unit din’the’. 537- 
present-case. 

  
  

  

87 

 



  

at 537-540.% RTE ma 

13. +The final determination, however, :must be made by-an —~=::: 

evaluation of the "totality of the circumstances," including‘ the 

factors .listed in the Senate Report. Westwego, 872 F.2d at_1206. _. 
  

The Court: must determine, on..the basis:.of. a:'searching, practical. =z:=- 

evaluation," of past and present reality whether the political - 

process is_open to minority voters. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 

[quoting S.Rep. at 30, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 208]... 

Such a determination is- dependent on the facts of each case and 

requires "an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of 

the contested electoral: mechanisms..'... Gingles,..478 U.S..cat 79... ... 

  

[quoting Rodgers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613,:621;, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 773° “5 

L.BEd.2d-1012  (1982)).-  :- ‘The appraisal - in this case ‘must be 

conducted. on a district-by-district basis. Gingles, supra, :at:&89: iced 
  

n. 28 (the inquiry into the existence of vote dilution is district ited 

specific)... =: Pet re pe Te wn BERT eT EET ETE 

14... This Court recognizes: that judicial elections are ‘-—-- 

characterized by less: voter interest than high profile candidates -.... 

receive at the top of the ticket. However, under the controlling 

  

*? . Unlike the statistical analysis in Overton, Plaintiff and 
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ experts in the present case established 
confidence levels of statistical significance and used consistent : 
measures of minority voting strength. Overton, 871 F.2d at 537- 
540. 

88 

 



  

law, party affiliation, straight party ticket voting and campaign -- 

factors do not constitute legally competent evidence in the present 

case. This Court rejects the State Defendants’ argument that there 

can be no "functional:view of the political process" without taking 

into account:political party as the principal factor affecting such =: 

races. ~~ ~The Supreme-Court .in Gingles made clear that it.-is: the «=: 1: 

difference between choices made by blacks and whites .alone:and.naot’ = Zz: 

the reasons why they vote differently that:=is the central inquiry: icia} 

of § 2. --Gingles, 478 U.S. 61-62. 

15. Congress and the Courts have recognized that "political _.. 

participation by minorities tends to be depressed where minority - 

group members suffer’.effects:‘of:<iprior. discrimination suchas: -iewt 

inferior education, - poor employment opportunities, RRL PO 

incomes. J Gingles, 478 “U.S. .at.69.. Congress clearly concluded =. zu 

that provisions such” as majority ivote requirements, designated 

posts, and prohibitions- against bullet: voting could serve ‘to::vions 

further dilute the voting strength of minorities.- Id. at 56; Jones =i in 

  

v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d at 383 (finding that majority vote 

requirement further submerges political-minorities). '-::.y puizrizen 

16.1 1This Court concludes that under. the relevant law the 

at-large system for election State:-District Judges: in the nine =v:: 

target: counties interacts with social and historical conditions to ‘ize 

89 

 



  

cause an inequality in the opportunity enjoyed by black -and white. --- 

voters to. elect their preferred..candidates.-.- Gingles, 478 U.S. at - 

47. Te 

17. Defendants’ lead expert, Dr. Taebel reviewed many 

election contests: :which.: the Fifth. Circuit... determined -are not 

germane to Voter Dilution. Cases. Dr. Taebel analyzed: races -in 

which Anglos opposed Anglos. «= Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d: 
  

1240, 1245 (5th Cir. 1988). Dr. Taebel also reviewed non-judicial.. .. . . 

elections. =. SER eT hLLYI VL I EY 55. 

18. ‘Costly reorganization of the State at-large system of. 

general .and specialized Courts and disruption of County 

administrative duties such -as jury selection--are not sufficient = = 

grounds for maintaining an otherwise: flawed system. - Westwego, 872 
  

dp F.2d at: 1211 [in reliance on Dillard’ v: Crenshaw County, 831F.2d..: he 

246, 250-51:i(:11th Cir. "1986)}..: ive badly as a 

19.7 Congress did not rontemplate that such considerations. i-- 

would play a'role in determining whether there has been-a violation: 

of section-2. Id. at 1210-11. 

20. - On the strength of the evidence of racially polarized 

voting in the. context of the: "totality of -the circumstances™ test- - 

and considering the substantial evidence: presented by: Defendants: |: 

to the ‘contrary, this Court concludes that ©Plaintiffs:-have: 

90 

 



  

demonstrated a violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act in each 

of the nine counties in question. -Westwego, 872 F.2d at 1203 & 
  

1209. : wo 

oo TFourteenth and-Fifteenth Amendment Claims =, Toiia. own 
  

21... Proof of racially discriminatory-intent::or purpose is«:iz:i=- 

required to show a violation under either the Fourteenth or 

Fifteenth-Amendment to =the United Statés Constitutions Chisom II, cion > 

supra, -at 41 [citing: ~ Kirksey v. City of Jackson; Miss., 663: F.2d: ©: 
  

659 (5th Cir. 1981); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-41 
  

1976) 1]. 

22. Proving racial”discrimination-as the motivating factor . --:iz- 

in a state legislative body "is often a problematic. undertaking.®-- is 

Hunter v. ‘Underwood, 471:U0.5.-222,.-227-28-(1985):.. SRPOGL WEB IETS 

presented that the legislative body as a whole:-possessed the-intent i. * 

to discriminate. Id. at 229-32.  It-is: impossible to conceive : 

that four leading minority members of the State: Senate: would vote: 

to send an individiously discriminatory measure affecting the 

entire state to the voters with their own seal of approval on it. 

| 23. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors failed to prove, 

as a matter of law,-that:the present at large system for electing 

State District: Judges in the State of Texas was instituted with the =- 

91 

 



  

specific intent to dilute, minimize or cancel the.-voting:strength —.. 

of Black and/or Hispanic voters.. Accordingly, the :Court:is:of the = i -:- 

opinion that -the following: Orders ‘are “appropriate: =: =r =: 

IT IS ORDERED that the present at-large system.of- electing 

State District.-Judges in the counties of Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, 

Bexar, Travis, Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and -Midland violates. : 

Plaintiffs’ civil rights by unconstitionally diluting the voting 

strength of Hispanic and Black electors in violation of Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 

(West. Supp. 1889). “iim hotel Ge on I ah ago 

— OP 18 JPURTIER ORDERED “that ‘Plaintiffsc and gPiatnt ites 
CET iad A 

Intervenors request to Permanently Enjoin ‘the State of Texas: tom 
: Fa Lee I theniogy, 

calling, bording, supervising: or certifying any { future: elections 
+ tm +4 - Pl 

HR LL nAcr x] WEES, dictin: 4 Siew ox. Sr LTS - 

for State Districtaludges under the presentuat lazge: Schone inTthe 
- ; » — oe fares ia a ~ Leena tL REY) Saar TE ETne nt i 

target areas is taken: under advisment. The ‘Court recognizes: the 
*y § mn =r = rg Se ates ty yY 1&0 SL ELT ATED Oy Ya 

possibility that cofrective relief nay be: available. ‘at ‘a dater date 

before future elections for State District Judges take * placs, 

Chisom v. Roemer, 853 3 2d 1186, 1189 (sth Cir. 1988). 
ns By dad. 8 Doma. - 

  

The Court is hopeful that Governor Clements will include the 

issue of an alternative State District court. election ‘scheme as 

part of his call of the Special Legislative Session on November 3, 
£13 A -a Ra A PR ; Sodak ip JEWS nk PP tS 

 



  

1989. Depending on the progress that is made in the Legislature, - ~ 

if any, prior to January 3, 1990, the “Court wil) thereafter : 

entertain a Restraining Order or Motion to Enjoin future State 

District Court elections pending the Remedy Phase of this “=r 

litigation. 4 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues of Costs of Court and 

attorneys fees are expressly reserved until the conclusion of this 

litigation. 

Chief Judge Charles Evans Hughes, in 1936, in an address to 

the American Law Institute, said: 

How amazing it is that, in the midst of controversies tenn 
on every conceivable subject, one should expect 
unanimity of opinion upon difficult legal questions! 
Inthe —highest ranges of thought, in theology, 
philosophy and science, we find differences of view 
on the part of the most distinguished experts -- 
theologians, philosophers, and scientists. The 
history of scholarship is a record of disagreements. 
And when we deal with questions dealing with 
principles of law and their application, we do not 
suddenly rise into a stratosphere of icy certainty. 

  

This area of the law is not a sphere of icy certainty. 

Should the Legislature fail to adopt a satisfactory Remedy in the 

Special Session (provided Governor Clements includes this matter 

in his call) this Court will consider the granting of an expedited 

appeal to the Fifth Circuit to determine whether or not the 

93 

 



  

Declaratory Judgment of this OS properly made. 

SIGNED AND ENTERED this 22 day of November, 1989. 

0. yf ge 
Joniet D. Bunton 

Joniet Judge 

  

94 

 



APPENDIX "A" 

  

Plaintiffs' & Plaintiff-Intervenors' 

Statistical Analysis 

~ 2 a ie 

e — = ~< [ex ~ >» 
a . . 

{= 

i 
bi 

ile 

= 
wi 

- Tr 

A 

= C 
9% ot og A ~ L ” on — 
Ut wv tL -o t SL rd & -~ a om 

. \ Lx - 

a. ~ 

yo 

Rr, 

 



  

Year 

1980 

1982 

1982 

1982 

1984 

198¢ 

1984 

1986 

1988 

ige8s 

i988 

Black 

Candidate 

(Party) 

Bonner 
(Democratic) 

Janes 

(Democratic) 

Routt (W) 

(Democratic) 

Ward 

(Democratic) 

Berry 

(Democratic) 

Jackson 
(Democratic) 

Lee 

(Democratic) 

Berry 

(Democratic) 

Plummer 

(Democratic) 

Proctor 
(Republican) 

Walker (W) 
(Democratic) 

Berry 

(Democratic) 

Fitch 

(Democratic) 

Jackson 

(Democratic) 

HOMOGENEOUS 

% of Non-Black 

Votes 

38.6 

35.6 

38.5 

34.7 

35.3 

37 

352.8 

40 

.'9 : i 32.% ¥ 3 wh RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN CANDIDATE PREFERENCES IN DISTRICT JUDGE hit 
ELECTIONS IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

3 GENERAL ELECTIONS, 1980-1988 
Prepared by Richard L. Engstrom, Ph.D 

PRECINCTS = =emene= ++===-BIVARIATE REGRESSION----cceeec-- WITH CONTROL FOR HISPANICS 

X of Black Correlation % of Non-Black %X of Partial XX of Black 
Votes Coefficient Votes Black Votes Correlation Votes 

96.9 0.822 37.8 103 0.909 98.4 

97.5 0.799 34.8 104.2 0.885 99.3 

98.1 I £1 37.7 104.6 0.896 99.9 

97.7 0.801 33.8 104.2 0.895 99.3 

97.3 0.883! 32.8 102.7 0.922 100 

97.17 0.880 29.3 103.5 0.942 100.8 

97.8 0.881 35.2 103.2 0.938 100.5 

: \ 

97.7 0.851 34.2 103 0.916 ; 99.4 

\ 
97.9 0.841 as 103.1 0.912 99.6 

4.6 -0.836 53.6 3.1 -0.899 ; 3.9 

98.2 0.847 39.1 103.3 0.882 99.9 

97.3 0.860 31.1 103.1 0.897 99.4 

97.17 0.849 as.4 103.4 0.836 99.7 

98 0.856 31.8 103.9 0.928 100.1 

PLAINTIFFS J] 
4 | HARRSEXRIBIV 

| 1 

 



  

' +7 | { ’ ! FO ! HEA i bt boat 

J | '58¢ LO 

Lee 39.2 98.2 0.849 AR / ‘ . 37. > 3 (Democratic) 3:7 103.8 0.92 100.3 

J Plummer 34.3 97.9 0.850 | . : . » 32.6 wr 
b (Democratic) : : i 32. 103.9 0.924 100.1 
F 1 { i AL ') cy ik 4 i 4 ? 1 { | 

1 1988 Spencer 38.3 98 0.842 
(Democratic) eal RE $n 842 .... « A8.8, 103.7 0.917 100.1 if 

4 We ! rey} 
3 - 
BR 
a i ‘ ' RIT 

3 

oa {Ro / i imi wl) Coat YN) of 

3 
> ( t SUE vA hn iv ict Lusa 1 

~ Su 
by Oh J WA 2 > 1h Pe 

R 
* » 3 f I i GIL Co 3 { Fi | hd 

3] >. 14 H We "Ix 
-} ~/| 

od oy Vive { { iar cl Cur SERIE TR : 
3 ! 1 | : \ on TRY | STI €:5 aim : \i1 \ Nes 

: 
3 i PA boofiinea WAILERS | LS ERR 11.4 Bathe ig ' | FE : LH fi | 

A ~/ 
oy 

3 ou r i il yl i tiie} « -. Mh Ch i 

“3 
s be i THE xl I hind i" bac 

3 3 0. ou & 
3 
3 i 1 ge | et Li “i« fA | 

: 
pr 

\ Ww \ | ‘ 2:1} “ bosip ub 
hy 

RE 

1°
. 

S
h
a
d
 au
 

- ~~
 - »
 

I] 

S
h
a
n
 
c
a
m
d
i
g
l
 

st
e 

i Ie. | \ IRR | s. EX TE LT bod of 

' 

. aa on \ THES ‘ ~ 
Tak Joi in vind 

; - 

4 \ Ya ' a As a Bs : I 3 il 

Rh 1 | 1 

.d ' i ' 1 | Ad 

4 TY \ i 159 won Pasian walt oa his | f : {| k In 3 | 
3 a |e “ Fi 1 A 1 tH wr 

| 3 
I] 
| f | 

did ! dal Kail: 1   

. 
F
A
)
 
L
a
f
i
a
l
d
h
i
s
 a
 

C    



  

Election Year 

1980 Primary Judicial Election 

1980 Ganaral Judicial Election 

* 

1982 Primary Judicial Election 

1982 General Judicial Elect im 

@ Primary Judicial Election 

| A 

1984 Rimoff Elect ion 

: 1984 General Rlection 

“he ew, 

1k Y ! ER i Pl 

BLACK JUDICIAL CANDIDATES IN HARRIS COUNTY, as 
YEARS 1980 - 1988 

Wook You: 

i) A Hi Yiu 

Name Outcome 

Alice Beier ; Unopposed : 
a 8S 1 i} om Jy 

fred hort | eat 

Alice Bevis Lost ? | 

Tanta ideo | Lost | 

John James HH rcipened y 

James Miidrow Unopposed 

John Peavey hr ‘Unopposed 

Thomas ‘Rout t Unopposed | 

Clark Gable Ward Unopposed 

John James ,, Loat 

Jamea Muldrow py fost 

John Peavy | || nPnoppoeed 
Thomas Routt. | = Wom 

Clark Gable Ward Lost 

Weldon Berry “nopposed 

Carolyn D. Hobeon made runoff 

Freddie Jackson "made runoff 

Shelia 7. Hea’ olen 

Kenneth Levi lost 

Jim Mildrow Lost 

Carolyn D' Hobo | won 

Freddie Jackeon'" Won 

Weldon Berry Loat 

Posty tb oar TL PETRY 

SITE B88 OTL Na Ue RE i [ 

section 

80th State Dlatrict Court (civil) 
Edd vimiy ak (adi, dé 

Comty Crintpal Court No. 6 
ALE ! rE A A OPE a 1 : ne 

County Criainal Court Mo. 10 

doth state District Care ; 

80th County Or indna), Court Nous 

262nd State District Court (criminal court) 

bounty ‘Criminal Court No. 6 

246th State District Court (family law) 

208th State District Court 

281st ‘State District Court (civil court) 

26200 State Diatrigt Court (criminal court) 

County; Criminal Court No. 6 

246th State Ristnict Court (family law) He 

208th State District Court (Griminal court) 1s Sa 

281at State District Court (civil court) | 

80th State District Court (civil) 

County Civil Court at Law # 3 

178th State District ‘Court (criminal) 

215th State ‘District Court (civil) 

333rd State District Court (civil) 

351th State District Court (criminal) 

county civil Court # Sill Hany 

178th State District Court (criminal) 

80th State District Court (civil) 

had been appointed; ran ’s incumbent 

had been appointed; ran as incumbent 

'PLAINTIFF'S-T 
THARSEXHIBIT 

10 
“ 

  

® 
&®
© 

© 
© 

Oo
 

Oo
 

6 
oOo

 
6 

6 
¢ 

oo
 

© 

 



    
| 

’ 

® 

» 1986 Primary Election 
: 

of 
vi 

i 

bo 
0. Find 

SE 

ko. 
got 

v3 

* 

9 J 1986 Run-of f 

: 4 

* 1986 Judicial Elections 

m~ 

  

Broomic. ow {1 

Carolyn DD. Hobson !/ 

Freddie Jackson 

Sheila J. Lee © (D 

Berry Weldon (D) (Dj 

Freddie’ Jackson (D) 

Cheryl E. Irvin (R) 

Raymond Fisher (D) 

Bonnie Fitch (D) is 

Hobeon, ‘Cardlyn (D) 

Sthdela UL, Jackeon (D) 

John Peavy (D) 

Matthews Plusmear, Sr. (D) 

Mamie Proctor (R) 

Reyno da, Fred (D) 

Thomas H. Routt (D) 
t yok a 

Carl Walker, Jr. (D) 

Francis Willjsse (D) 

Fred Reynolde (D) 

Carl Walker, Jr. (D) 

Carl Walker, Jr. (D) 

Carolyn D. Hobson (D) 

Matthew Plummer Sr. (D) 

Bonnie Fitch (D) 

Raymond Fisher (D) 

Weldon Berry (D) 

Lost 

Loat 

Loat 

County Civil Court''at Law # 3 

178th State District ‘Court (criminal) 

| 215th ‘State District Court (civil) 

281 Civil Diatrict:' |. 

295 Civil Dietrict: Be 

County Criminal Court & 3:1 

County Criminal Court # 14 . 

County Criminal’ Court # 13. 

Canty Civil Court # 3 

Probate’ # 4 La i EE 

State Family Court 246"! 

133 State Civil vd 

State Family # 245! - 

County Criminal’ Court No: 11 

wal 4 

State Criminal Court 208 

State Criminal 85 

County Criminal Court # 4 

County Criminial Court No. 11 

State Criminlial 85 

State Criminal Court 185 

County Civil Court 3 

133 State Civil 

County Criminal Court 13 

County Criminal Court 14 

281 gsi Civil 

-2- 

IE ACR Ey 

Lost to Frank 0. White 

won over Hispmnic, Angel Fraga 

incumbent 

incumbent 

incumbent ''i#l lea | 

| \ Ia 

made 1t:to runoff, one of five candidates 

running for County Crim. Ct. No. 11. 

incumbent 

made it to run-off 

Incumbent 

Loat to David Mendoza in run-off; 

Mendoza eventually won. 

Won agalnat Lupe Salinas 

Won over George Godwin 

Won overt Allen Hughee 

incumbent 

Loat to Lamar McCorkle 
incumbent 
Loat to Mark Atkinson 

Loat to Jim Barkley 

Lost to Louis Moore



    

1988 Primary Election 

1988 Ganeral Elect ion 

@
 
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
 

0
5
9
9
1
3
.
 

0,
 

® 

® 

® 

» 

& 

» 

(J 

Francis Williams (D) 

Shella J. jaa (D) 
' ie 1 

.Yam1e Proctor (R) 
Cheryl E. Irvin 

Thomas H. Routt, (D) 

John W. Peavy (D) 

Ban Durant 

Bonnie Fitch 

Ray aond Fisher 

Matthew W. Plummber 

Weldon Berry 

Beverly Spencer 

Freddie Jackson 

Bonnie Fitch 

Shaila J. Lea 

Matthew W. Plummer 

Weldon Berry : 

Beverly Spencer 

Freddie Jackson 

Loat 

Loat 

Loat 

Lost 

Loat 

. County Criminal Court 4 
SEM LE ET Ba RE BRL | 

Probate # 4 

hel hon-B vol 

i State Faplly Court 245 

County Criminal Court 3 

State Criminal Court 208 
pid 13 i 

State Family Court 246 

174th Civil Diatrict Court 

132nd Civil District Court 

'. 1T7th Criminal District Court 

' 133rd Citi] District Court 

80th Civil District Court 

333d Civil District Court 

| 218 Civil Diatrict Court 

152d Civil District Court 
IE 7% | 

‘295th Civil District Court 

133rd Civil District Court 

80th Civil District Court 

333rd Civil District Court 

215 Civil District Court 

incumbent 

Lost to James E. Anderson 

Loat to Bill McCulloch 

Lost to tary Schuble 
i iL IB 

Loat to Siie WE I 

incumbent 

Incumbent i 

ran agalnat Grey Glass 

ran against Miron Love 

ran against Jack O'neill 

ran againat Dan Downey 

ran against Lamar McCorkle 

ran agalist William R. Powell 

ran against Davie Wilson 

ran agalnpt Gane Chambers 

 



, 4 r 1 = Fr: : v Y ’ ¥oi3 Ww RE 1 raf l | \ a TE LE 3 0 BY / i os Hy ; AEE SE SE TR 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

fo aad : : ra y 4 Li 10H 2005 Sis | Al £ 0 ; Li 

SET Dr high as eli utile ng Edun AL 
Ve ia SIRE de LIEN The SEL 2 Seat packll id 

/ ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 

Homogeneous Precincts : Bi-varfate Regression With Control for Hispanics Black | | fo a | : x 
Candidote % of Non-Black X of Bleck Correlation X of Kon-Bleck  X of Black Partial X of Black Year _(Psrty) Votes Votes Coefficient _ Votes Votes Correlation Votes 

@:: Winn 39.7 rd ony .865 38.6 100.5 | .912 97.2 
(Dem) 

al : 
1984 Barska | 60.6 3.5 -.894 61.8 -0.5 -.932 2.8 

(Rep) 5 

1984 Tinsley 30.0 EH oT 90% DR lang es 908.3 943 99.2 
(Dem) } 5.0 j i] sil 

Watihite: he i 97.5 .902 30.6 103.1 L044 ys 00.9 
(Dem) ood ¥ i 

1986 Tinsley 37.5 98.3, He Ee TI fiat nie Ww 100.6 

®o 
1986 “Wright 70.6 4.3 -.872 7.7 .1.5 -.916 2.8 (Rep) & 

1988 oliver 37.9 98.3 B54. 1. 3589 104.3 913 100.2 
(Dem) 

Plohong be. bind 

c ol 

4 | Ral 
fo zn 

SEE =| 
Ww :   

- 

 



  

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP VOTNG IN BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ELECTIONS: 1982-1988 
  

            

  

Bivariate Regression Analysis  |Homogeneous Precinct Est. Are ethnic Does 
Pearson Estimates for: '190-100%| 90-100% . groups Hispanic 

Siq. teen as cepa Hispanic. | Non-Hispanic polarized? .| choice win? 1282 General Election iy i | . 
District Court #144  -.80 oi B i" YES ND 

Barrera (Hispanic) .0000 17 77 x24 74 
Stohlhandski 83 23 I-76 26 

. Total 300° "100  V-g0 100 
District ‘Court #290 87 Hi 3 co YES NO 
Delgado (Hispanic) .0000 103 18 i 82 21 

» Berchelman : - 3 B2 4% a 79 
Total + 100 20100 : 100 7° 100 

1984 Gencral Eleciion 2 | 
District Cour: #37 57 I ot & YES NO 

Davila (Hispanic) .0000 104 26 73 35 
7. Cornyn Awd 74 27 65 

TN Total 100 100 114300 100 
1986. General Election ve] : District Court #285 .88 ¥ YES NO 
Cisneros (Hispanic) .0000 95 12 ty. 88 22 
Peeples 5 88 [E12 78 
Toial 100 100 {100 100 

1988 General Election Ba 
District Court #73 .87 i YES YES w Mireles (Hispanic) .0000 106 35 Tham x 37 
Bowles - 6 65 Bi 7 63 
Total 100 100 ,, 100 100 

District Court #225 .86 : YES ND 
Serrata (Hispanic) ~ .0000 103 28 [¥. 291 33 

Specia - 3 72 9 67 
Toial 100 100 100 100 

PENGLD. Soyonne, LE : 

CR = 
: | 7 bs 
OE 

has 
wv 

 



NC \ | iy    4: i ' A 

ESTIMATES OF ETHKIC GROUP YOTIX G In TARRANT COUNTY ELECTIONS 1986- 1988 
  

              

  

  

    

  

| Pertial r Fizgression Estimates Homogenzous Estimstes| Are ethnic groups polanzed? Does Black 
1 Biack Anglo Elssk Anglo Bla, choice win? 

1986 General Election 
Cray. ODi3T. Crt. FI 4 87 
Selvent (Bleck) 7 46 | 6 ;t. 4) NO HO 
Drago : 93 54 94 10.088 

Tots! 100 100 100 100 
Crm. L¥sX. Crt. Mr -.80 
Stums (Black) : ! 15 49 1 ‘44 NO NO 
Goldsmith : i 85 31 84 ob 

Tots) 100 100 100 100 
1988 Dem Primary Er Hag oe 38 
Fresident 98. | Ag vo YES YES 

3 Jeckson (Eleck) 99 14 a3 16 
Gore+Simon+LsRouche +Hen +Dukekis 1 86 7 84 

Total | 100 100 100 100 
1238 Generel Election RE peg :! EE, diy 
Cri. £43. Crt. £2 90 =! oh } fig 0 on ne Ae NES NO 
Pavis (Black) | 100 42 98 30 

.Dsuphinot 5 : 0 o8 2 S0 
‘ Tote! : 100 100 100 100 

’ pm A 
J PENGAD Boyonas, HJ. XY - : 

P = : 
: Ee | 

| bp X22 | : 
¥ Zt | 3M] 

Boa iy : x BF 
Nuun) 5 Eh L] t { { 1 

 



a 

  

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP VOTING IN TARRANT CO. ELECTIONS 10982-1988 

  

      

  

  

Bivariate Regression Analysis Are ethnic poes: ~~ ¥ 
Pearson r| Estimates for: groups polarized?| Black 

S19. | Blacks | Whites B/A choice win? 
1982 Democratic Primary : i gif 

Co. Criminal Crt. Pl 1 82 YES NO 
Hicks (Black) .0000 87 38 
Corfee 13 62 SL Ret 

Total 100 100 i ple. 
1986 Democratic Primary foe 
co. Criminal Crt. Pl 1 76 LYS NOEL HE 
Ross 0000 57 1 “RCN hy 
Gal(ifeather+Ross+Pounds+Clark 43 89 

Total 100 100 

1986 General Election : 

crim. 0ist. crt. Pl 4 -83 : ie 

Salvant (Black) - R .0000 3 55 YES YES 
Drago 97 45 

Total en | i a A Te IRE OR 
Crim. Dist. Crt. PI 1 -60 LR i DL 
Sturns (Black) - R .0000 3 57 YES NO fib 2p 

Th ——t GAlISMth ~ D 91 ~ 43 a 
Tatal 100 100 | bs 

1988 General Election a fats a mR 
criminal DISt. Crt. Pl 2 62 YES NO. lamin 
C. Davis (Black) - D .0000 103 40 Loaf 

Dauphinot = R -3 60 2 

Total 100 100 

Source: Numbers are from analyses Conducted by Delbert Taehel, Department or Lirban Studies, 

Univ. or Texas al Arlingtan 

EC ade == “~~ 

f . iy Ne i. 2 te g® 

ng JALIL ES 

SRESLE | 
§ 

o> » wii: 2d i Tes 
  
 



  

  

            
  

Jy Feri REL AEA OBER 

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC CROL2 VOTING NE TRLVIS COUNTY Ei. ECTIONS: 1003 
? Peril . | hltiple Regression Ext, Homogeneous Frecinets [Anz ethnic groups | Doss Hispanio 

0, Hispanics i Anglo Hispanics | Srl polanzed? choice win? 
1334 Den Prisngry Haid 
SITCE Court {IND 5 EN Py Lp ey i YES MO 

Gaterdo (Hispenis = CHOY NL WE 39 HE +; bi 
hiCown - Chie NE J 14 6% 

Tote 100-14 100 100 00 
County Court~Sd-Laer, 24 YES MO 
Azria (Hispanic) | 0000 us 33 an ST dy 
Fhiiips ; GR BY 10 3 
Total 100 100 100 100 
olaly Copaidas, 20 = 5 YES MO 

Castro [Hispanic] vy SR AT 14 {1 SR wo 
» Kermne dy (Elk +Hughes <3 56 aah: fg 

Tote 100 100 100 100 

  em 

PINCLD -Boyonng, ei) 

: h 
. |] 

i | ; 
|= 73 

t oN 

S
A
I
N
I
V
I
Y
 

M
p
 
m
n
 
p
o
m
 

mn
 

= 
—
 

i
 

0 
$l
) 

B
r
.
 
B
t
n
 

© 
S
A
 

r
e
 

i } . : LJ 

—~
— 

°   

 



  

H 
ARR RY | 

Koda 

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP YOTNG IN TRAYIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT" ELECTIONS: 1988 

| 

1988 Dem Primary 
District Cour? £3545 

Gallardo (Hispanic) 
McCown 

Total 

Lounty Courl-gt-Law 

Garcia {Hizpanic) 
. Phillips 

Total 
C Lounly Court-at-1lay 
Castro (Hispanic) 

- Kennedy (Black) + Hughes 
Total’ \ 

  

          

  

Bivariate Regression &nalys is Harmoqe neous Precinct Est. Are ethnic Does 
Pearson r Estimates for: EIAETE RRS A0-100% Qraups Hizpanic 

2iq. isttolenlien  tieranils Hispanic Mon-Hispanic polarized? choice win? 

Bf | YES NO 
0000 101 3 1.86 37 

-1 54 14 63 
100 100 100 (aj) ] 

“= 80 YES NO 
0060 100 3 30 27 

0 64 10 3 
100 100 100 100. PORE 

90 76, wile, “3 16 VES Nid 
0000 24 1 Bh 37 84 

100 100 100 100: y 

ino, 

a 
[ 1 

[3.7 LAINTIZS 
? CXHIBIT ; 

2 
Pi
yo
an
e,
 

TR- I9 
  

  

  

 



fui : ERA ’ Pe Ean ope 3.0m hE FOIE ates) % » et \ i 1. ' ' 

PLR Lo CRD ee 0us, PTecin: 15] AN obit an ; : ; i Sie Jia dd ; \ 
ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP YOTIKG IM JEFFERSOHR COUNTY ELECTIONS 1972-1928 . 
  

  

              

 Pertislr |' 1" 'FiegressionEstinsles | Io Homogeneous Estinistes [Are ethnic groups polsnzed?] Does Black Black Anglo | Black Anglo BA choice vin? 1972 Democratic Prinary fi 1 3 Jo. PF, Fel I FL2 E20. Bi YES NO Freeinsn (Black) 70 25 Lit 78 26, Mttrell+Tremern+L eibold+Pelnus ore 30 dS : 25 tH. 74 Tots! 100 00 | 100 100 1972 Democratic Runoff £188 Jo. F, Fst 1 FL2 66 bie YES NO Freeman (Bleck) 85 J 22 40 Tramen K 15 62 8 60 Total 100 100 100 100 1974 Democratic Prinary 
Jo. P, Fett 2 £12 9 

YES NO Freeman (Black) 83 26 89 ae! ail Kemr+Knowles 17 74 1 75 Total : 100 100 100 100 , 1974 Denocratic Runoff 
Jo. P, Felt. 2 FL2 72 

YES NO Freeman (Black) 93 41 es 42 Knowles 7 S59 3 o& ; Total 100 100 100 100 Lh 1978 Democratic Primary Rion County Coort at Law, FIZ 7 | YES 53. NO Davis (Black) e4 10 93 13 StieswvVines 16 90 7 87 Tote! : 100 100 100 100 1982 Democratic Prinary 
Jo. P, let) PLZ 97 

VES NO Cannon (Bleck) 93 7 o 6 McCassellsvic Cell 47 93 ; 19 94 Totel 100 100 100 100 ye 1986 Democratic Prinary 
Jo. Fret 1 FL2 93 NO NO Roberts (Black) a7 2 40 3 Robinson#vcGinnis+Devis +hiller 53 98 60 7 = Tote! 100 100 100 101) PCA0-teremns. 8 4 11988 Democratic Primary 

4 ! President 97 YES VES ‘ ky 2 [Vackson (Black) 101 6 a6 7 ; > Gore+Simon+L aRouche +Hert +Duk skis -1 94 4 92 (QZ Zi Tol 100 100 100 100 O52! 
S353 oo     

. ry 

1 

: 
 RTLATN 

 



  

  

          
  

or THe Ute Ty ERE STs thAL Fay, : cE ads JES fend 0S Esl go IEEE | wh wl ea TE To Lie 
ESTIMATES OF| ETHNIC GROUP VOTING IN-JEFFERSON COUNTY: ELECTIONS iia 1988 AD RC er i 

: Multiple Regression Analysis Homogeneous Precincts Are ethnic Does fr 
Partial r Estimates for: | 90- i 100% ., | groups polarized? Black . 

Siq. Black | = Anglo Black | Anglo B/A choice win? 
7988 Democratic Primary ro I ya CL 
President i : .97 Re j: YES YES 

"Jackson (Black) y .0000 101 6 96 7 is ge 
Gore+Simon+LaRouche+Hart+ Dukakis “1 ¢ 94 | 4 193 4, | 

Tota | | 100 © 100 100 H00 | 

; Le 4 | Wool i ar ate 16 ¢ 

ri 
) 
Io 

 



| 

) os » vk ERC | i 

A td RIL 
H | 

  

oh ) Silisi, dl 

ESTIMATES OF ETHRIC GROUP YOTHG IN-LUBBOCK C 
| WA i . 7 CHI 8 

OUNTY ELECTIONS: 1986 -1988 ani ule 
  
      

      
  

          

  

Fartisl r Regression Estingles for Homogeneous Estimates [Are ethnic groups polarized{Are Hisp. & Black Poes Comb. Mn. Hispanics Bleck .“Analo. Comb.Mn® Anglo ~~ Comb. Mn.* Comb. MnlAnglo cohesive choice vin? 1986 General Election : : Ps : 3) : ¥ Supreme Ct. FI. A 951.79 ag Bi th Th h VES VES NO Gonzslez [Hispenic) 99 "90 35 a7 lung a . Bates (White) = 1 10 . $5. 3 61 9 Total .- 100.100 "71000. | . 100 | 100 100 1988 General Election 2 . Bale 0 A d as Sqpreme Ct. FL. J 931.88 J 2 | YES YES NO Gonzelez (Hispenic) 94 "790 37 9) [" 40 €9 Howell+Scholz (White) 6 10 63 ¢ J Fe 80 11 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100) 

Numbers in these columns were derived from bivariate analyzes, ell others from multiveriste analyses 
. | | 

| 40 

  

  

11
81
HX
3 

S,
44
11
NI
V1
d 

  5
 

    

 



   : . EE lS IY ELECT 14 
£25 AE et OP TLE NE : bd i : N 

. + pe v Cut 3) | 
1 

      

  
    

      

Vd a Hk ( SERIE 

pid i O04 GY | Al B 3 30: r : { COUNTY GENERAL ELECTIONS: 1986 -1988 ... A LL TE : Bivariate Regression Analysis | — ~~ Multiple Regression Analysis ~ [Homogeneous Precinct Are ethnic | Are Hisp.| Does Pearson] Estimates for Partial r- HB Estimates for 90-100% | 80-100% |groups polarized?| & Black | Comb, Min. Sig. Anglo [Comb. Min n Sig.-H/B [aimee Black Anglo | Comb. Min. | Comb. Min/Anglo|cohesive?| choice win? 1986 General Election ) a “0 7:8 ry Supreme Ct. Pl. 4 86. 95/79. cir C YES YES NO Gonzalez (Hispanic) .0000 35 97 .00Q0/.Q000 35 99 90 39 91 : Bates 65 3 SHI 65 oo it 10 61 9 Total 100 100 " 100 1Q0 100 100 100 1988 General Election 4 ia fag! | C00 Supreme Ct. Pl. 3 .94 .93/.88 a . YES YES NO Gonzalez (Hispanic) .0000 37 93 .0000/.0000 37 94 90 40 89 hi. Howeil+Scholz 63 Po s0ciiy 83 8 10 | 60 1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
fs 1A wd 13; 

AEH h 
LL, S69) jh 1d 

i i, Ot 

   

   

2
0
-
7
 

LI
gI

HX
3 

§,
44
1L
IN
IV
d 

E
T
E
 

S
e
 
i
n
 

1S
 

a
d
i
 

  
  

   



  

ESTIMATES OF ETH 

1986 Dem Primary 

Ct. Crim. App. PL 1 
Martinez (Hispanic) 

Dial+Duncan+Reagan 
Total 

Supreme Ct. PI. 4 

Gonzalez (Hispanic) 

Ilvy+Gibson+Humphreys 
Total 

1986 Dem Runoff 

Supreme Ct. Pl. 4 

Gonzalez (Hispanic) 

Gibson 
Taal 

Ct. Crim. App. PI. 1 
Martinez (Hispanic) 
Duncan 

Total 

NIC GROUP VO 

| 408 el Wil 

TNG IN LUBBOCK ‘COUNTY PRIMARY ELE 

RECT Id Galil 

EE BRN 1 ERAT TR fy 

ORE § MER 

CTIONS: 1986 '- 
  

        

Bivariate Regression Analysis Multiple Regression Analysis [Homogeneous Precinctd Are ethnic Are Hisp. Does 
Pearsonr| Estimates for Partial r- HB Estimates for 90-100% | 80-100% [groups polarized?| & Black | Comb. Min. Sig. | Anglo |Comb. Min] Sig.cH/B" [2 Hispanic | Black | Anglo | Comb. Min. | Comb. Min/Anglo| cohesive? | choice win? 

| wd pi BE rit) ! 

97 H .98/.80 i AS LL I! YES YES YES 
.0000 16 98 .0000/.0000 15 108 61 22 79 

84 2 CESARE -8 39 78 21 
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

93 7 .95/.56 | : = % YES YES NO 
.0000 36 97 .].0000/.0015 35 106 86 41 89 

64 3 65 -6 14 59 1 
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

.87 .78/.66 YES YES YES 
.0000 36 97 .0000/.0002 36 97 96 46 94 

64 3 64 3 4 54 6 
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

.93 881.77 | YES YES NO 
.0000 24 103 |.0000/.0000 24 105 98 32 9s 

76 -3 76 -5' 2 68 5 
100 100 100 100 100 100 100       

  

 



it 
9) 

| 

  

“BLOT On: 
| LR BI : 
| 8 Ta LR TERR 1 € 

rad 

Prec 

i Lul'S] 

0b Ne 

8) 

| 

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP VOTNG IN ECTOR COUNTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS: 1986 

1986 Dem. Primary 
Supreme Ct. Pl. 4 

Gonzalez (Hispanic) 

Ivy+Gibson+Humphreys 

Total 
Ct. Crim. App. PI. 1 
Martinez (Hispanic) 
Dial+Duncan+Reagan 

Taal 

1 
AR 

  

        

      

Bivariate Regression Analysis Multiple Regression Analysis |Homogeneous Precinct : Are ethnic Are'Hisp. Does 
Pearson r| Estimates for Partial r- | Estimates for 890-100% | 80-100% [groups polarized?| & Black | Comb. Min. 

Sig.) Anglo |Comb. Min Sig.-H/B Anglo] Hispanic | Black Anglo | Comb. Min. | Comb. Min/Anglo]cohesive?| choice win? 

.80 46/.71 : YES NO NO 
.0000 1 53 .0381/.0002 13 42 65 14 50 

89 47 87 58 35 86 50 

100 100 ; 100 100 100 100 100 
78 : . 50/62 | YES YES YES 

.0000 15 74  1.0178/.0019 15 68. 81 , 19 68 

85 26 ‘BS 327" 19 81 32 
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

0 cS 

4 } td dn 

  

 



3 

w 

(Hy 

  

ESTIMATES OF ETHNIC GROUP VOTNG IN MIDLAND COUNTY. ‘ELECTIONS: -1986 
  

      

' Are ethnic 

  

Does 

  

Bivariate Regression Analysis , {Homogeneous Precinct Est 
Pearson Estimates for; 190-100%(90-100% groups Comb Min. 

Sig. Ahglo | Comb Min. Anglo | -=Comb. Min. polarized? choice win? 
1986 General Election : THE Es . vik g 
Supreme Ct. Pl. 4 .96 Hu YES NO 
Gonzalez (Hispanic) .0000 25 i 90 132 ay | 
Bales 75 10 68 11 

Total 100 100 100 100i 
1986 General Election = 
JP Pl 1 .96 a] YES NO 
Watson (Black) .0000 19 in 99 26 So 90 
Jobe, *% SERS 74 oe 1D; 

Total 100 100 100 100 
1988 General Election 
Supreme Ct. Pl. 3 .89 YES NO 
Gonzalez .0006 34 85 37 91 
Howell+Scholz 66 15 63 9 

Total 100 100 100 100 

  

 



  

ESTIMATES OF ETHXIC GROUP YOTHG IH iIDLAND COUKTY ELECTIONS: 1986 -1988 
  

          

      

Eivanate Fiegression Anshis Multiplz Regression Anslysis [Homogeneous Precincts] Ars ethnic Are Hisp. Does 
Fesrsonr| Estinstesfor |Patisdr-HIB| | © Estimates for 90-100 | €0-100% [groups polerized?] & Black [Comb hn. 

Cig. analy [Comb bsnl Sig HB Annals | Hispsnic | Black snale Comb. Win. | Comb. MinlAngly cohesive? [choice win? 
1986 General Election : | : 
Swpreme Ct. FI. 96 861.99 | YES YES NO 
Gonzalez (Hispanic) 0000 24 Qi .0000/.0000 24 105 78 23 9 
Bates 76 10 76 oN 22 72 15 

Tolsl 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
1986 General Election a Hi 
JP FL 96 871.81 |! YES YES MO 
Watson (Black) 0000 17 91 .0000/.0000 17 106 GR 21 835 RS Jobe §3 ¥ 83 + 21 79 ; 

Tots) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
1988 General Election 
Swpreme CL. FLL 3 96 841.32 YES YES NO 
Gunzelez 0000 34 a1 .0000/.0000 34 99 &6 37 7 
Howell+Scholz 7 4 bE 1 14 B3 14 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
i 

 



APPENDIX "B" 

  

Plaintiffs' Re-Evaluation of 
Defendants' Statistical Analysis 

: ~ 
HE Foddoil av = 

 



  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

DALLAS COUNTY 
  

Page # of . Did Whites Did Black 
Taebel & Blacks Choice 
Exhibit - Year - Race ---- Vote Differently? Win? ren 

  

Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 

General Elections: 
  

District Court: 

1 1980 191st Dist Ct Yes ed No 

21 1984 Cr. Dist. 2 Yes No 

37 ---n:-1984° <= 301st Dist Ct * Yes No 

69 .-.---:1986 -- 256th Dist Ct Yes No 

73 ‘1984 195th Dist Ct. Yes No 

89 1988 95th Dist Ct Yes No 

County: Court, at..Law:i:os: 
17 nt 1982. 1-CO0: Cr. 6 Yes No 

Justice-..of the. Peace Court: None 

Appellate: Court: MNone:~. .~. ou © os 

Ro ne - = - -— 

Primary Elections: 
  

District-Court: :--: Se We a 

81 .,. 1988 ...Cr. Dist .2 [RP] Neo vita Yes oy 

County Court at Law: 3 ni a He Ee Ee 

13 1982 Co. Cr. 6 [RP] . Yes No 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: None 

 



  

Judicial Elections Without Black Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

District court: 

5 1980 95th Dist Ct 

9 1982 191st Dist Ct 

25 1984 Cr. Dist 3 

33 1984 162nd Dist Ct 

77 1986 298tg Dist Ct 

County Court. at Law: 
bel BE Sle : 

  

Justice of" the- “pedce - Court: None 

Appellate:Court: 

' 568 placineBevi.iSJOr, 4 

85 1988 S Ct 3 

Primary ‘Elections: c= — 

District courts None 

County EOGEE CAE: want sNone 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

29 1984 Ct Cr App [DP] 

41 1986 S$. Ct. 4 {DOP) 

45 1986 Ct Cr App [DP] 

49 1986 S Ct. 4 [DP-RO] 

53 1986 Ct Cr Ap[DP-RO] 

  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

i
N
 

Non-Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 
  

None 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

 



  

Non-Judicial Elections Without Black Candidates: 
  

  

  

  

57 1986 Lt Gov Yes Yes 

61 1986 Atty Gen Yes No 

SCORECARD 

Whites/Blacks Black 
Vote Differently Choice Win 

Judicial 
Elections with 
Black Candidates 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Black Candidates ~~~ 

Non-Judicial 
Elections with 
Black Candidates 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without 
Black Candidates =*- 

8 of 9 1 of 9° 

© T1Tof 12 5 0f 12 

wy TOF Or 0 of 0 

2.0 2 1 of 2° 

 



  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

BEXAR COUNTY 
  

Did Whites Page # of 
Taebel & Hisps. 
Exhibit . Year . Race ... .Vote.Differently? 

Judicial Elections With Hisp. Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

=. FLT y Mr ARETE Te 

District Court: 

‘187st Dist Ct Yes 5 1980 

15... 11982 144th Dist Ct Yes 

16 1982 290th Dist Ct . Yes 

18 2 3984 37th Dist ct . Yes. 

19 ~s 1986 "285th Dist.Ct.. Yes. ... 

25 1988 73rd Dist Ct Yes 

26 “1988 -— 225th Dist Ct Yes - 

County Court at Law: 

20 2086 | ‘Co. oti ad lyde 
£ 

27 © 1988 CS. ctor LDPgRY 

Justice of the Peace Court: None ~ 

Appellate Court: 

4 vee 1980 Ct App... ---Yes 

28 1988 Ct App Yes 

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: 

2 via 103.980 131 Dist Ct[DP] Yes 

3 Sire 13280 
187 Dist Ct{DP} Yes 

Did Hisp. 
Choice 
win? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

 



  

  

7 1982 285 

9 1982 285 

10 1982 288 

11 1982 289 

12 1982 290 

17 +1984 

22 1986 

1980 

1980 

County; Court. at: Laws; : ; 

13 1982 Co. 

14 1982 Co. 

23 1988 

  

Dist 

Dist 

Dist 

Dist 

Dist 

Ct [DP] 

Ct [DP] 

Ct [DP] 

Ct [DP] 

Ct [DP] 

37 Dist Ct [DP) 

.150 Dist Ct[RP] 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

187 Dist Ct[DP] No 

raya Le 
LS i 

f~ vrs TTY 
bs MERE 

131 Dist Ct[DP] Yes 

Ct. 4 (DPY 

Co. Ct. 2 [DP] 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

1 . 1980 

§ riuan nde? 
g. Liittwual 

24 ,..0. 1988 

Judicial Elections Without Hisp. Candidates: 

Ct App [DP] 

Ct App [DP-RO] 

Ct. App [DP] 
Ct App [DP] 

cr. 3. -{DP] . Yes 

Yes 

  

General Elections: - 
  

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

 



  

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

215 lene Co. Ct. 5(DP] Yes 2% wes 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

Non-Judicial Elections With Hisp. Candidates: None 
  

  

Non-Judicial Elections Without Hisp. Candidates: None 

  

  

  

AE SST. URE ©. SCORECARD 
  

— Whites/Hisps. Hisp. 
| Vote Differently Choice Win 

Judicial 
Elections with REET, Een he A SA RY yo 
Hisp. Candidates 28 of 29 9 of 29 

Judicial | a or 
Electiong:without .. — iim no 
Hisp. Candidates 1. 0f 3 ll. 0f:1 

Non-Judicial 
Elections with 
Hisp. Candidates :-::...- iii: 2° 0-0f-0--- ; 0. of 0 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without 
Hisp. Candidates 0 of 0 0-0fFD 

 



  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

TARRANT COUNTY 
  

Page # of ~~ Did Whites Did Black 
Taebel : & Blacks Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? Win? 

Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

RE | SR Pe EE a at a a a ——— ce = ETT EE - 

District Court: 

29 ~ 1986 Cr... Dist. 1 . : Yes No 

33 ..1986 . Cr. Dist. 4 Yes Yes 

57 1988 Cr. Dist. 2 Yes No 

County Court at Law: None 

Primary Elections: 
  

— en District ‘Court: None 

County‘:Court' ‘at ‘Law: 

1 ii°1982 4200. Ors 1-YDP)’ Yes". 12% No 

37 =r 1986 “Co. Cr. 6 {DP] Yes ase No 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: None 

Judicial Elections Without Black candidates: 
  

General Flections: ........ 
  

District Court: 

13 1982 233rd Dist Ct Yes Yes 

 



  

17 

21 

25 

61 

1982 

1986 

1986 

1988 

297th Dist Ct 

233rd Dist Ct 

325th Dist Ct 

17th Dist Ct 

County Court at Law:: 

9 1982 Co. Cr. 4 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

65 

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: 

5 1982 Co. Cr. 4 [DP] 

~ Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

41 

49 

Non-Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 

1986 

1986 

Ct.Cr.App. [DP] 

S. Ct. 4 [DP] 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

  

None 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Black Candidates: 
  

45 1986 Atty Gen Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

  

  

 



  

Judicial 
Elections with 
Black Candidates 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Black Candidates >=. 

Non-Judicial = 
Elections with 
Black Candidates 

Non-Judicial~ 
Elections without 
Black ¢andidates 77° 

’ wat 
SAP 

SCORECARD 
  

Whites/Blacks 
Vote Differently 

il of 11 

Black 
Choice Win 

1 0f 5 

8:0Ff 11 

Oof 0 

0 of 1 

  

 



  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

TRAVIS COUNTY 
  

Page # of Did Whites Did Hisp. 
Taebel : & Hisps. Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? Win? 

Judicial Elections With Hisp. Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: °° 

29 1986 S ct 4 No Yes 

45 "i T'Ybes 8 bE 3 No Yes 

Primary Elections: =~. 
  

District Court: - 

37 . 1988 345 Dist Ct{DP] Yes Nal tL 

bw Lenk 7.¥ (zn No Vas 

County Court at Law: : 

33 1988. "do. ct. 1 {bp) vee: No 

a1 1988 Co. ct’ o77IDP] "Yes +. © No 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

1 1984 Ct Cr A [DP] Yes No 

9 1986 Ct Cr A [DP] Yes No 

21 1986 S Ct 4 [DP] No Yes 

25 1986 S Ct 4 [DP-RO] No Yes 

 



  

Judicial Elections Without Hisp. Candidates: 
  

  

General Elections: 

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

49 7 19ms iB ct 4 No 

  

Primary Elections: oo 

District:Court: -- lt 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

  

Non-Judicial Ploar ions ith Hise. "Candidicest 

5 1984 St Sen 14 No 

33 1986 Atty Gen No 

1984 St Sen [DP-RO] Yes 

1984 St. Sen [DP] Yes 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Hisp. Candidates: 
  

17 1986 Lt Gov No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

  

  

 



  

Judicial 
Elections with 
Hisp. Candidates 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Hisp. Candidates 

Non-Judicial Es 
Elections with 
Hisp. Candidates 

Non-Judicial 
Elections- without-~ 
Hisp. Candidates 

SCORECARD 
  

Whites/Hisps. 
Vote Differently 

Hisp. 
Choice Win 

 



  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

JEFFERSON COUNTY 
  

Page # of Did Whites Did Black 
Taebel - a & Blacks Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? Win? 

Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 
  

General Elections::. -. 
  

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: None 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: None 

  

  

  

  

  

District Court: None 3 § i 

County Court at Law: None = I AL AAA tt NI Seidel J [AA 

Justice of the Peace” Court: None = a ft 

Appellate Court: None 

Judicial Elections Without Black Candidates: = ¢nson. 

General Eloitionss 

pistriss Conrhr Nong. 

County Court at Law: None 

Justice of the sade Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

Ww. hlasfe rT S.ict. on No a Yes 

17 So iam-10860 10S, CC. § 4 No Yes 

 



  

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: None 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

7 1986  Ct.Cr.App. [DP] Yes No 

13 "T3e86 8. Ct. 4 (DP) Yes Yes 
EE LI 

Non-Judicial Elections With Black Candidates: 
  

1 ~~ -.--1982-- -- St.Rep 22 Yes Yes 

4 fusiigegq’ TASEIRep 227070 Nyes . Yes 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Black Candidates: 
  

  

  

  

19 1986 Gov. i Yes | Yes 

22 1986 Atty Gen No Yes 

SCORECARD 

TE «CO Whites/Blacks «ro Black 
IRTALE IY RIE -Vote-Differently Choice Win 

Judicial: iv" 
Elections with 
Black Candidates... _ ~~~.  00f0 Tis 0 of O 

Judicial Re ge 
Elections without 
Black Candidates 2 of 4 3 of 4 

Non-Judic¢ial™™ =~ 7 
Elections with oy 
Black Candidates - =~!" 2 0f 2 2 0f 2 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without : 
Black Candidates : =:1 of 2iES 2 of 2 

 



a8 

  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 
  

LUBBOCK COUNTY 
  

Page # of Did Whites Did Minority 
Taebel & Minorities Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? Win? 

Judicial Elections With Minority Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: None 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

appellate Court: bi ie 

17 1986 8. Ct. #4 Yes No 

gn Ee THERE Ed apg ge git sheep gt TEE Ree YS 

  

  

  

  

  

PL MBEY BLOC AONB ta orm err inten vo st fre mee SEE 

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: None SLCORLCARD 

Justice of the Peace Court: None Whilos/uy Ea Hn itv § 

Appellate Court: None Ci Ty Te 

Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: 

General-Eleetions: 

District ‘€Court:-None-  - - Wi 

County, court at Law: 

1 SE “1982 Co Ct. 1 Yes ri No 

9 hae=TiO0BE | CosiCt. 2 Yes No 

 



  

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: 

21 1988 Ct. Cr. App. Yes No 

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: None 

County Court at Law: 

¥5. = 1983 Co. Ct, 1 {DP} We Yes 

Justice of the Peace Court: None 

Appellate Court: None 

Non-Juditial-Elections With Minority Candidates: 
  

13 LAR 1986 “Atty Gen: $ Yes Yom No 

A — 2 = lr 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: None 
  

  

  

  

3 SCORECARD 

: a ; Whites/Minorities Minority 
ETPGALATH TLE Vote Differently Choice Win 

Judicill imo Ghia Saale RULLTATY LLG GGG 
Elections with 
Minority Candidates 2. 0f2 0 of 2 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Minority Candidates 3 0f 4 l'of 4 

Non-Judicial 
Elections with : : 
Minority Candidates 1. 0f 1 0 of 1 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without Rt SRE he ls i 
Minority Candidates Oof 0 0 of O 

 



PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 

  

  

ECTOR COUNTY 
  

Page # of Did Whites Did Minority 
Taebel & Minorities Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? Win? 

Judicial Elections With Minority Candidates: 
  

  

General Elections: 

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

py. FlEiese ® sce a © Yes ‘No 
- St NO” Fda FI oe — 

37 1988 S Ct 3 Yes No 

  

Primary Elections: 
  

  

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

  Justiceof-the Peace Court Cg ste, ings 

Appellate Court: 

Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: 
  

General Elections: 
  

District Court: 

5 1980 161 Dist Ct Yes No 

County Court at Law: 

9 1982 Co Jud No Yes 

13 1982 Co Ct Law No Yes 

 



  

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

29 1988 S Ct 4 Yes & No 

33 i 1988 Ct App Yes No 

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: 

County. Court: at .Law: 

Justice of the Peace--Court: 

Appellate Court: 

ER Lh TT F¥ ~~ cind nm den dm no 
= LS ta AliL WTO z te fe 

Non-Judicial Elections With Minority Candidates: 
  

17 1986 Atty Gen Yes No 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: 
  

i) 1980 4 RR Com Yes : y No 

25 1986 Lt Gov Yes : No 

  

  

 



  

SCORECARD 
  

Whites/Minorities 
Vote Differently 

Judicial 
Elections with el ngs 
Minority Candidates 2vof.-2.. 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Minority Candidates 3 of 5 

Non~Judieial 
Elections: with - 
Minority Candidates lof 2 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without .... “es raves 
Minority Candidates 

TA BEE SR 

2 0f 2 

Minority 
Choice Win 

0 of. 2. 

 



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

PLAINTIFFS' RE-EVALUATION OF DR. TAEBEL'S REPORTS 

MIDLAND COUNTY 

Page # of Did Whites di Did Minority 
Taebel & Minorities Choice 
Exhibit Year Race Vote Differently? = Win? 

Judicial Elections With Minority Candidates: 

General Elections: 

District Court: if 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: Te a 

Appellate Court: 

25 1986 SCL 2 Yes or. 7 NO : 

29 1988 S Ct 3 Yes No 

Primary Elections: 

District Court: Me Rar TR 

County Court-at Law? ee BOT SET 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

9 1986 Ct Cr App {DP} No = zf~ =... No 

21 1986 S ct 4:{DP) Wot sha cnhaacaiato 

Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: =~ 

General Elections: 

District Court: 

1 1980 142 Dist ct No Yes 

County Court at Law: Ea ¥ 

 



  

9 ol 
Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

Primary Elections: 
  

District Court: 

County Court at Law: 

Justice of the Peace Court: 

Appellate Court: 

Non-Judicial Elections With Minority Candidates: 
  

5 1984 Co Atty [RP] Yes No 

13 1986 Atty Gen [DP] No No 

17 1986 Atty Gen Yes No 

Non-Judicial Elections Without Minority Candidates: 
  

  

  

  

SCORECARD 

Whites/Minorities Minority 
Vote Differently Choice Win 

Judicial 
Elections with 
Minority Candidates 2 of 4 0 of 4 

Judicial 
Elections without 
Minority Candidates 0 of 1 1 ofl 

Non-Judicial 
Elections with 
Minority Candidates 2 0of.3 : 0 of 3 

Non-Judicial 
Elections without 
Minority Candidates 0 of O 0 of O