Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motions for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay

    ROLANDO L. RIOS 
Attorney At Law 

201 N. ST. MARY'S, SUITE 521 
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 

December 22, 1989 

U.S. District Clerk 

200 East Wall Street, Room: 316 

Midland, Texas 79701 

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

Civil Action No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filing in the above case are the original and a copy of Plaintiffs 
Opposition to Motions for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay 

bias Ty Jina 

ll Rolin L. Ri 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 
RLR/rlr 

cc: Council of Record 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

= FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. NO. MO-88-CA-154 

MATTOX, et al., 

 
%
 

% 
% 

% 
% 

¥ 
» 

% 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR 
CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND FOR STAY 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

1. Plaintiffs oppose the Motions for Certification of 

Interlocutory Appeal filed by the Defendants, Defendant-intervenor 

Entz and Defendant-intervenor Wood and Motion for Stay filed by 

Defendant-intervenor Wood 1 and would respectfully show the Court 

as follows: 

2 Plaintiffs filed this case, on July 11, 198s. As 

requested by Defendants, the Court stayed this case on October 17, 

198% while the Supreme Court reviewed a petition 
  

Chisom v Roemer concerning whether or not the Voting Rights Act 
  

applies to the judiciary. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on 
  

  

November 14, 1989; the Court lifted the stay on November 25, 1989 

and discovery proceeded. In that same Order, the Court set this 

i 
The State of Texas, through 1ts Attorney General, has 

withdrawn its request for a stay. 

ya 

1 

 



- Ny . > ? I © Q a © EPP | oH \ ! ' J . EY - Y 1] Y Iai ON. A 70 J Il reoruary ~~ +r 
- - - 

reset trial for July 11, 1989, however, to allow the regular 

session of the Texas legislature to address the issues posed by 

this litigation. The Court then again reset trial in this case for 

September 18, 19859 upon the request of the Defendants, and 

particularly upon the request of Defendant Chief Justice Phillips. 

Order of June 6, 1989. The Court finally tried this case during 

the week of September 18, 1989 in Midland. 

3 On November 8, 1989, the Court issued a ninety four page 

decision on the merits of this case. In great detail, the decision 

explains why the present system of electing district court judges 

in the nine counties at issue violates Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act. As the Court notes, however, the Texas legislature was 

about to go into special session on November 14, 1989°. Order at 

92. This session could last no more than thirty days. To give 

the legislature its due opportunity to revamp the system for 

electing district court judges, the November 8, 1989 Order merely 

relief “in 

resolving this 

  

‘Actually, the legislature had already been 
cial session, which began on June 20, 1989 an  



  

legislature is over and adjourned. Unfortunately, the legislature 

did not act on the issues that this case presents. On December 11, 

1989, the Court convened a meeting of counsel, parties and Texas 

Governor Clements, at the Governor's request. During the course 

of the meeting, the Governor explained that the legislature is 

unlikely to resolve this matter before the primary elections are 

held on March 13, 1989. Further, the Governor also stated that he 

would probably veto a plan that included single or multi-member 

districts if the legislature ever drafted one. 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

5. Plaintiffs contend that there is no reason to disrupt the 

progress of this case by permitting an interlocatory appeal at this 

time. There has already been one mid-case appeal 1n this 

litigation.  LULAC et al v Clements et al, 884 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 
  

1989). Further, this Court clearly applied correct legal analysis 

to the facts of this case in 1ts Order of November 8, 1989. 

On To justify her Motion for Stay, Defendant-intervenor Wood 

st show that 1) she is likely to succeed on the merits, 2) she 

  

  

    

ill suffer irreparable injury zbsent a stay, 3) the grant of a 

stay would not substantially arm other parties and 4) the grant 

of a stay will serve the public interest. Unlted States v Baylor 

University Medical Center, 711 PF.24 38 7(3th Cir. 1983); Ruiz \ 

Estelle, €50 F.28 555 (5th Cir. 1881) {Ruiz I); O'Bryan v Estelle, 

631 F.24 706 (5th Cir. 1882). Wood has the burden of proof. Ruiz 

3 

 



FPoc+eal af ag 4 F ) 
v a de he a v Luu “0 eo £ le 

“amit § 

1042 (1983) (Ruiz 11). On appeal, the standard of review is 

whether the "trial court abused its sound discretion in denying 

the stay." Beverly v United States, 468 F.2d 732, 740 n. 13 (5th 
  

Cir. 1972). 

Ts Wood cannot succeed on any of the prongs of this 

analysis. This Court's Order of Ncvember 8, 1989 clearly uses the 

intensely local analysis envisioned by Thornburg v Gingles, 478   

U.S. 30 (1986), the only Supreme Court interpretation of Section 

2 of the Voting Rights Act. Further, the Court's Order of 

November 8 does not irreparably injure Wood in any way. It only 

declares that the present system is invalid; it in no way orders 

any type of relief. 

8. Further, there can be no harm to Wood in allowing this 

case to proceed while appellate review continues. This will allow 

her a chance to present to this Court her views concerning an 

appropriate remedy for the violation that the Court hes 

9 On the other 

Court stay 

its November 8 Order. 

  

)
 

0
)
 

n
m
 

om
 

Hs
 

hi
 

O
Q
 

i
c
t
 

<
0
)
 0 ia 

"3 | m
o
O
 

nN 
=
H
 

rt
 

jo
} 

 :
 

ct
 

\Q
 

{)
 

Qu
  



  

- 

mber election districts for the judiciary since the mid-1970's. 

Despite these vears of proposals, and despite one regular session 

and two special sessions of the legislature during the course of 

this litigation, the legislature. has not changed the system. The 

minority communities in the nihe counties at issue in this case 

have already waited for decades to vote under a fair system for the 

district court judges who preside over their cases. They will 

suffer substantial harm if this Court continues to delay relief for 

them by staying proceedings in this case. 

10. A stay would also do injury to the public interest 

because it would continue in place an election system that has the 

effect of discriminating against minority voters in nine counties 

in Texas. This discrimination violates the public policy of the 

United States as evidenced in the Voting Rights Act. Further, a 

stay would contravene the public interest as stated by the State 

of Texas through 1ts Attorney General Defendant Jim Mattox. The 

NYT + “rr loam + av AY + kK. 3 DyYr~rr ~~ ¥ += ~~ D - £17 = ¢ ~ = Io 
Mae Ulli Lu Lili iC IeNrTas lo Of the _—- Cposed ZNLerl mw Ce} ted Tog0ey DY 

Ya tt Sf Fir T= $A rd A shir ho ATE AY Ne VY Conary s 
P.aintliilIs, Plaintitli-intervenOors anc the Attorney General. 

Therefore Plaintiffs rechnectfualil reocljoet that the Coulrt dorny adil OL pal illo FCS REULIVLIT VEL CLL SR Se 1 0 A T&L TRE Bg ¥ Lo aC y 

+ Fo ra YO co cferndAante! Mav v1orne Far Cey +1 fFarmrat+rinr fry ITrn+er ~~ < x 
~— Ce 4 Le iN. A wid wt 2d war RAN OC ANAL [= < Wa \ FA a SSG SO SL aes Sp tS 4 oo de te Ne Nee Ad NSA) 

ra oo Pi is Re Aor Defendant-intervenor r~evrd Ye at 1on ri 
Appeal anaG als( ceny gienaant—incervenoy WOOO 'S yLlon I01 

Str =n oe - 

Ye FES rs Na rSomBey 10606 
QC nen — CL pg i J Oh 

 



  

GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

A Partnership of Professional 
Corporations 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
8300 Douglas #800 

Dallas, Texas 7522 

(214) 369-1952 
LEAD COUNSEL 

ROLANDO L. RIOS 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

201 N. St. Mary's "4521 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

(512) 222-2102 

SUSAN FINKELSTEIN 
STAFF ATTORNEY X 

TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC. 

201 N. St. Mary's #600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

{512)222-2478 

  

  

, Rolando L. Rios, do hereby certify that a true and correct 

f Flaintiffs OppPOositic ¥ for Certificat 4 P) PI 

Interlocatory ‘Appeal and For Stay has been mailed via ‘feeders: 

Xpress to 

ATTORNEY REPRESENTING     

  

 



  

Edward B. Cloutman, 111 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB & 

CLOUTMAN, P. C. 

3301 Elm 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

214/939-9222 FAX: 214/939-9229 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 

777 5S. R. 1... Thornton Fwy, Suite 12} 

Dallas, TX 75203 
214/428-3793 

Julius Levonne Chambers 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational 

Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson St., 16th floor 

New York, NY 10013 

212/219-1900 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 

301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, TX 78701 

512/320-5055 

Defendants 
  

Jim Mattox 
Mary F. Keller 

  

Rec = Ink Renea H1cCKks 
oo bp Or ENE Javlier Guajarco 
nt + EST py ye mY YE 
BLiocIne senelra. -~ if ice 

D ~~ Ds qin At 
% U POX 14580 

- QQ 
Austin, TX: 78711 
Et ogg p pies Bt ire 
DXLL EDI =LVED 

a AE yn ph I te ay ric 

i i Ye T= oC eo + 
J Fugene Clements 
a rS Y3a 2 8 yj 

= 8 Neill 

~lvn X ~ -~ 
a — a) LJ ~— -~ 

PRT ~T mc 
hy 4 4.23 a bd oe BR 

-r T LO Cris 3 BV 
UL FEAR OI Gps By @ a NJ © J So Sw jo ava" 

o rd pine of ey (3. 273 
WET HRW 5 AL i w\ 

am fen ir 
a J] L200 OU 

™ — : ~~ : 1 
1] om 4 Darrell Smit 
N > — 
AtTorney at Law - 

Jesse Qliver 

Joan Winn White 

Fred Tinsley 

Jesse Oliver 

Joan Winn White 

Fred Tinsley 

Houston Lawyers Assn. 

Francis Williams 

Rev. William Lawson 

Houston Lawyers Assn. 

Francis Williams 
Rev. William Lawson 
Texas Legislative 

Black Caucus 

All Defendants 

“teed rye Ch = Lim A 
ENS oO Sari VY WOOO 

~ H=ayr3c Cy nT y oF arris Count) 

Judge Sharolyn Wood 

of Harris County 

 



San Antonio, 

512/641-9944 

Michael J. Wood Judge Sharolyn Wood 
Attorney at Law of Harris County 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 
713/228-5105 

Mark H. Dettman Midland County & 
County Attorney District Judges 
P. O. BOX 2559 
iidland, TX 79702 

915/688-1084 

Ken Oden Travis County District 
Travis County Attorney Judges 

P.O. BOX 1748 
Austin, TX 78767 

512/473-9415 

David R. Richards Travis County District 
Special Counsel Judges 

600 W. 7th St. 
Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. Judge Harold Entz 
HUGHES & LUCE of Dallas County 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main St. 
Dallas, TX "75201 

214/839-5500 

~ ~ - 4 
Celli at