Order Granting Motion for Stay

    United Bates Court of Appeals 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

OFFICE OF THE CLERK TEL. S04-585.6514 
GILBERT F. GANUCHEAU 

600 CAMP STREET 
CLERK 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 

January 12, 1990 

TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

No. 90-8014 League of United Latin American Citizens 
v. William P. Clements, Et Al. 

Dear Counsel: 

Enclosed herewith are our Court’s corrected orders filed on 
January 11, 1990. The only correction in these orders is the 
changing of the appeal line to read Appeals from the United 
States District Court for the Western District of Texas instead 
of Northern and the caption of this case in this Court. 

Very truly yours, 

GILBERT F. GANUCHEAU, Clerk 

By 80m (5 gocsto— 
Eileen C. Boudoin 

Case Manager 

  

ECB: 1mc 

encls. 

 



    

5 J : 

3 ea - 

Foy. kw . . 

A) nn. x ad : 

B is 
WS hE. od PR i 2 ¥ ] 

1% 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR T HE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

U.S. CLURT OF Appia, g 

  

No. 90-8014 Fi ED 

JAN 171 1990 
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN GIL 
CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4434, BERT F. GANUCHEAY 

CLERK 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, ETC., ET AL., 

Defendants, 

JIM MATTOX, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

versus 

JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, ETC., 

and JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC. 

and GEORGE S. BAYOUD, JR., ETC., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

and 

TOM RICKHOFF, SUSAN D. REED, JOHN 

J. SPECIA, JR., SID L. HARLE, SHARON 

MACRAE and MICHAEL P. PEDAN, Bexar 

County, Texas State District Judges. 

Appellants. 

 



  

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Texas 

Before GEE, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM: 

IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ motion for stay 

pending appeal are GRANTED. We do so in order that the State of 

Texas may be allowed a reasonable opportunity to address the 

problem presented by the holding of the district court entered 

November 8, 1989, that the state system of selecting judges is 

invalid as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See 

Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1988). 

That holding, if sustained on appeal, will require an 

organic and wholesale review and reconstitution of the Texas 

judicial selection system, a task which should be addressed and 

carried out by the state’s elected representatives, rather than 

by the federal courts. Only if it becomes apparent that the state 

is unwilling to act with measured and appropriate speed in this 

regard should our courts intervene. When the State has had a 

reasonable period within which to address the problem presented 

in a special session of the Legislature, the Court will entertain 

a motion to dissolve. That has not yet occurred; when it does, we 

will be amenable to a motion to dissolve the stay which we enter 

today. In the meantime, on our own motion, we EXPEDITE and 

consolidate the appeals from the district court’s orders of 

November 8, 1989, and January 2, 1990.1 

il 
  

This appeal being founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a) (1) and 
1292 (b), we need not concern ourselves about the motion pending 

 



  

It is further ORDERED that the motion of appellant Judge 

Sharolyn Wood, etc., for leave to consolidate this appeal with 

case number 89-6226 is DENIED. Instead, on its own motion the 

court consolidates this appeal with case number 90-9003. 

It is further ORDERED that the motion of appellee Jim 

Mattox, etc., for leave to strike the notice of designation of 

independent counsel and the emergency application for stay filed 

on behalf of George S. Bayoud, Jr. is DENIED. 

  

! pefore the trial court (denominated a "Rule 59(e)" motion in 
certain of the filings) to modify that court’s interlocutory 
injunctive order. Rule 59(e) has no application to interlocutory 
orders, and the notice of appeal vests jurisdiction over this 
order in our court. See Coastal Corp. v. Texas Eastern Corp., 869 

F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1989).