State Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS . 

JIM RIATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL May 23, 1939 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

John D. Neil 

Deputy U. S. District Clerk 

200 East Wall Street 

Midland, Texas 79702 

  

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

No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for {filing in the above-referenced cause are the 
original and one copy of the State Defendants’ Original Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

Sincerely, 

  

\ 3 he 

Reiiea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 : 

(512) 463-2085 

ce: Counsel of record 

512/463-2100 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-23548 

 



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 
VS. 

JIM MATTOX, et al. 

Defendants. CO
N 

LO
N 

LO
N 

CO
R 

O°
 

LO
N 

L
O
 

STATE DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER TO 
PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

to the Plaintiffs’ Second* Amended Complaint ("the complaint”): 

First Defense 

The complaint fails to state a claim against State Defendants upon 

which relief can be granted because: 

A. Each of the judicial districts challenged by the plaintiffs already 

is a single member district. State district judges are elected to a specific 

judicial district and serve as the judge for that district without sitting as 

part of a collegial decisionmaking body. Vote dilution claims cannot be 

made against a single member electoral system; 

B. Alternatively, as to the challenge to the 72nd Judicial District 

and the 114th Judicial District, only one state district judge is elected from 

each of the geographical units comprising them. The 72nd Judicial District 

is comprised of the counties of Crosby and Lubbock. The 114th Judicial 

District is comprised of the counties of Smith and Wood. Therefore, each of 

 



these two districts is a single member district. Vote dilution claims cannot 

be made against a single member electoral system; 

C Alternatively, as to the challenge to the following judicial 

districts, each already is a single member district because it is the only 

judicial district in the county for which an election is scheduled in the year 

indicated in brackets adjacent to the district: (i) 238th Judicial District in 

Midland County [1990]; (ii) 268th Judicial District in Fort Bend County 

[1992]; (iii) 34th Judicial District in Culberson, El Paso, and Hudspeth 

Counties (combined) [1992]; (iv) 7th Judicial District in Smith County 

[1992]; and (v) 161st Judicial District in- Ector County [1992]. Vote dilution 

claims Connet be made against a single member electoral system; 

D. Alternatively, as to the challenge to the following judicial 

districts, each already is a single member district because it is the only 

judicial district in the ¢ounty devoted to the general civil/non-specialized, 

criminal, or family docket, as indicated in brackets adjacent to the district: 

(i) 289th Judicial District in Bexar County [family]; (ii) 147th Judicial 

District in Travis County [criminal]; (iii) 327th Judicial District in El Paso 

County [family]; (iv) 306th Judicial District in Galveston County [family]; (Vv) 

321st Judicial District in Smith County [family]; (vi) 205th Judicial District 

in county unit of Culberson, El Paso, and Hudspeth [criminal]; (vii) 328th 

Judicial District in Fort Bend County [family]; and (viii) 318th Judicial 

District in Midland County [family]. (It subsequently may be determined 

that other of the challenged districts also are the only courts of a 

specialized type within a geographical unit and that, therefore, they too 

must be added to the immediately foregoing list.) Vote dilution claims 

cannot be made against a single member electoral system;  



  

E Alternatively, as to the challenge to the following judicial 

districts, each already is a single member district because it is the only 

judicial district in the county devoted to the general civil/non-specialized, 

criminal, or family docket, as indicated in brackets adjacent to the district, 

for which an election is scheduled in the year indicated in braces adjacent 

to the court specialization designation: (i) 303rd Judicial District in Dallas 

County: [family] {1992}: (ii) 360th Judicial District in Tarrant County 

[family] {1992}; (iii) 289th Judicial District in Bexar County [family] {1990}; 

(iv) 147th Judicial District in Travis County [criminal] {1990}; (v) 327th 

Judicial District in El Paso County [family] {1990}; (vi) 306th Judicial 

District in Galveston County [family] {1990}; (vii) 321st Judicial District 

[family] {1990}; (viii) 241st Judicial District in Smith County [general 

civil/non-specialized] {1990}; (ix) 7th Judicial District in Smith County 

[general civil/non-specialized) {1992}; (x) 205th Judicial District in county 

unit of Culberson, El Paso, and Hudspeth [criminal] {1990}; (xi) 210th 

Judicial District in county unit of Culberson, El Paso, and Hudspeth [general 

civil/non-specialized] {1990}; (xii) 34th Judicial District in county unit of 

Culberson, El Paso, and Hudspeth [general civil/non-specialized] {1992}; 

(xiii) 328th Judicial District in Fort Bend County [family] {1990}; (xiv) 

240th Judicial District in Fort Bend County [general civil/non-specialized] 

{1990}; (xv) 268th Judicial District in Fort Bend County [general civil/non- 

specialized] {1992}; (xvi) 318th Judicial District in Midland County [family] 

{1992}; (xvii) 238th Judicial District in Midland County [general civil/non- 

specialized] {1990}; and (xviii) 142nd Judicial District in Midland County 

[general civil/non-specialized] {1992}. (It subsequently may be 

determined that other of the challenged districts also are the only courts of 

a specialized type within a geographical unit up for election in a given year 

£3. 

 



  

and that, therefore, they too must be added to the foregoing list.) Vole 

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

Second Defense 

{7 The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

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

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

contains only averments to which no responsive pleading is required; 

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

responsive pleading, the State Defendants deny them. 

2. (2 of the complaint contains only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent it is construed to 

contain averments requiring a responsive pleading, the State Defendants 

deny them. 

3. To the extent that 3 of the complaint is construed to contain 

averments to which a responsive pleading is required, the State 

Defendants admit 43's averment that the Court has jurisdiction over this 

action, but deny that each of the cited provisions provides such 

jurisdiction. 

4. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in {4-17 of 

the complaint. 

5s The State Defendants admit that the averments in the first two 

sentences of 18 accurately identify who hold the two official positions to 

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

the state law-based responsibilities concerning the administration and 

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

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

A 

 



  

some of the descriptions of the officials’ duties in the first two sentences of 

118, however, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments beyond what 

is stated in the preceding portion of this paragraph. The State Defendants 

admit the averments in the third sentence of {18, except they deny that 

John F. Onion and Charles J. Murray are members of the Judicial Districts 

Board of Texas. They have been replaced by Michael J. McCormick and 

Roger J. Walker, respectively. The State Defendants deny the averments in 

the fourth sentence of 18 because the reapportionment duties are not 

exclusive and are dependent on other circumstances. 

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

complaint. 

7. The State Defendants deny the averments in 20 of the 

complaint. : 

8. The State Defendants deny the averments in $21 of the 

complaint insofar as they state or imply that: counties are being 

challenged; they have listed all the counties within whose geographical 

boundaries lie challenged judicial districts; and the listing of the number of 

state district judges elected within a specific county's geographical 

boundaries indicates the number of at-large positions held by state district 

judges within that county's boundaries. At this point, the State Defendants 

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

truth of the remaining averments in the paragraph, including averments 

concerning population data indicated by the 1980 United States Census. 

The 1980 United States Census data speaks for itself. 

9. The State Defendants deny the averments in {422 and 23 of 

the complaint. 

 



  

10. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of :the averments in {24-26 of 

the complaint. 

11. The State Defendants admit, except for certain spelling or 

typographical errors, the averments in (27 of the complaint concerning 

the listing of the challenged district courts and the names of the 

individuals currently holding those positions. The State Defendants admit 

the paragraph's averments about the geographical unit in which voters 

may cast their votes for those judicial district positions, except for the 

averments about the 72nd and 114th Judicial Districts. The State 

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the averments in 27 of the complaint about the 

voting precinct and the race or ethnicity of the individuals currently 

holding the district judgeships. However, attached as Exhibit A to this 

answer is a chart which assumes the accuracy of the plaintiffs’ 

racial/ethnic classification of individuals currently holding office in the 

challenged judicial districts. Exhibit A uses this assumption, plus the 

specialization designations for the judicial districts in the Texas 

Government Code, plus the schedule of when those positions are up again 

for election as indicated in the 1988 Fiscal Year Report on the Texas 

Judicial System as prepared by the Texas Judicial Council/Office of Court 

Administration. 

12. The State Defendants deny the averments in §{28 and 29 of 

the complaint. 

13. 930 of the complaint contains only legal averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required. 

 



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

the complaint. 

15. 933 of the complaint contains only legal averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
First Assistant Attorney General 

Nea BVA ols 
NT HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

Ap bere 

  

  

( hvieR GUAJARDO / 
Assistant Attorney Ce 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 23rd day of May, 1989, I sent a copy of the 

foregoing State Defendants’ Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the 

following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 Douglas, 

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

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

10013: Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, 

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

P.C., 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter 

“7  



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

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

Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. ; 
Pa 

fn Lo] 
: “ ga = Vl 

eR — a 

Renea Hicks 

  

 



    

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

EXHIBIT A 

COUNTY Total Judges Total Judges, Total Judges 
UNITS Elected ('90) Elected ('92) Elected 

Harris 34(3B; 2H) 25 (1H) 59(3B; 3H) 

Gen.Civil/NS 10 (IH) 21 31 (lH) 

Criminal 12 (2B; 1H) 4 (1H) 16 (2B; 2H) 
Family 12.418) 0 12: (1B) 

Dallas 26(1B; 1H) 10 (IB) 36(2B; 1H) 
Gen.Civil/NS 8S: (1H) 5 13. (1H) 
Criminal 10 4 (IB) 14 (IB) 
Family 8S (1B) 1 9 (IB) 

Tarrant 11 (2B) 12 23 (2B) 
Gen.Civil/NS 2 9 11 
Criminal 3. (iB) 2 5S (1B) 
Family 6 (1B) 1 7. (1B) 

Bexar 10 (2H) 9° (3H) 19 (5H) 
Gen.Civil/NS 4 (lH) 7 (2H) Y1- (3H) 
Criminal Ss (1H) 2 AlA) 7: (2H) 
Family 1 0 1 

Travis 6 7 13 
Gen.Civil/NS 5 7 12 
Criminal *1 0 1 
Family 0 0 0 

El Paso 5 (3H) 3 (2H) 8 (5H) 
Gen.Civil/NS 4 (2H) 3 (2H) 7 (4H) 
Criminal 0 0 0 

Family 1 (IH) 0 1 (1H) 

Jefferson 6 2 8 
Gen.Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 2 0 2 
Family 2 0 2 

Galveston 3 2 5 
Gen.Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 1 0 1 

Lubbock 2 2 4 
Gen.Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 0 0 

Ector 3 1 4 
Gen.Civil/NS 3 1 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 0 0 

 



  

McLennan 
Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family 
  

Smith 
Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family —

_
O
 

= 
NN

 
o
o
n
 

S
O
 
r
=
 

o
o
n
 

—
_
O
 
N
W
 
a
 Bt 

  

Culberson, El Paso, & 
Hudspeth 

Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family O

O
 

r=
 

ed
 

  

Fort Bend 
Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family —_

 
CO

 
—
 

IN
 

CO
 
=
 

NN
 

  

Midland 
Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family —

_
—
O
 

= 
Nd

 
C
O
O
 
r
m
 

—_
 
O
N
 
W
 

  

Crosby & Lubbock 
Gen.Civil/NS 
Criminal 
Family 
  

Smith & Wood 
Gen.Civil/NS 

Criminal 
Family O

O
O
 

o
o
o
 
O
O
 

O
O
O
 

rm
 

O
O
 

rr
 

O
O
 

r
t
 
f
d
 

O
O
 

r
m
 

p
=
 

  

  

TOTALS 115(6B; 8H) 82(1B; 6H) 197(7B; 14H) 
Gen.Civil/NS 48 (5H) 67 (4H) 115 (9H) 
Criminal 34 (3B; 2H) 12 (1B; 2H) 46 (4B; 4H) 
Family 33 (3B; 1H) 3 36 (3B; 1H) 
  

  

Notes: "B" means Black, and "H" means Hispanic. 
"NS" means non-specialized. 
The sources and assumptions for this chart are specified in §11 of State Defendants’ Original 

Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.