State's Response to Appellant Wood's Motion for Divided Argument

Public Court Documents
October 30, 1991

State's Response to Appellant Wood's Motion for Divided Argument preview

5 pages

Includes Correspondence from Hicks to Clerk.

Cite this item

  • Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. State's Response to Appellant Wood's Motion for Divided Argument, 1991. 5c993a53-1f7c-f011-b4cc-6045bdffa665. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/39e3112b-c6ff-427b-b426-796d378586f2/states-response-to-appellant-woods-motion-for-divided-argument. Accessed November 07, 2025.

    Copied!

    Office of the Attorney General 

State of Texas 

DAN MORALES 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

October 29, 1991 

. VIA TELECOPY 
Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 

ATT'N: Jeralyn Maher 
Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: LULAC, et al. v. Attorney General of Texas, et al., 
No. 90-8014 

Dear Ms. Maher: 

I just returned to my office to note that I had received a motion 
on behalf of appellant Wood seeking equal division of argument time. 
The state's response is enclosed.’ 

Sincerely, 

a Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

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

cc: Counsel of Record 
Members of Texas Judicial Districts Board 
Audrey Selden 

512/463-2100 P.O. BOX 12548 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTU NITY EMPLOYER 

 



  

6, Y
i
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Vs. No. 90-8014 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF TEXAS, et al, 

Co
n 

CO
N 

Co
n 

Co
n 

CO
N 

Go
n 

Go
n 

oN
 

Lo
n 

Wo
n 

Defendants-Appellants. 

STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT WOOD'S MOTION FOR DIVIDED 
ARGUMENT 

The Attorney General of Texas, the Secretary of State of Texas, 

and the thirteen members of the Texas Judicial Districts Board, 

including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas sitting as 

Chairman, official-capacity defendants-appellants (collectively, "state" 

or "Texas") respond as follows to Appellant Wood's motion requesting 

that twenty of the thirty minutes for oral argument be allotted to her 

and appellant Entz at the expense of the state. 

1. The state incorporates the response it filed yesterday in 

opposition to appellant Entz's motion. The instant response is filed 

primarily to note for the Court some of the factual and legal 

mistatements in appellant Wood's motion. 

2. Judge Wood's rather too cute inferential accusation that 

the below-signed attorney in unethical, see Wood, at p. 2 last para., 

reveals a disheartening lack of familiarity with the rules of ethics 

which govern lawyers; it also, the state would suggest, should 

disqualify her from further argument in this case (even if preexisting 

principles did not). 

 



  

$e
 

3. Her statement at pp. 2-3 is unsupported by a single matter 

of record. The Supreme Court in fact entered an order explicitly 

denying appellant Wood and Entz's divided argument motions. 

Nothing that the below-signed attorney has seen suggests that they 

ever withdrew the motion. | 

4. Conveniently unmentioned by appellant Wood is the fact 

that the state argued to the Supreme Court for affirmance of the Fifth 

Circuit, but on a different ground than the en banc opinion and on an 

ground additional to the panel opinion and concurrence. 

5. At bottom, appellant Wood's complaint is that she wants to 

displace the Attorney General of Texas but without standing for 

election. She already has been rebuffed in her efforts to take 

$400,000 from the state for her work as an individual. She should be 

rebuffed again in her self-serving, attempted disparagement of the 

Office of the Attorney General of Texas. She is here as an individual, 

not as an official. She (only one of nearly 400 state district judges who 

might be affected by this Court's ruling) speaks for herself, and no one 

else as a party in this case. She is not a class representative; she is not 

a state official insofar as this case is concerned. She has nothing to 

add to whatever appellant Entz might argue. Her portion of five 

minutes should be enough time for her to further disparage this office 

with baseless accusations and attempted usurpations of the state's role 

in this case. 

The state urges the Court to deny appellant Wood's motion, 

which ultimately would have the effect of undermining the state's case. 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

DAN MORALES 
Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 
First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY F. KELLER 
Deputy Attorney General 

eee tock, 
  

RENEA HICKS — 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

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

- (512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR 
STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

30 
I certify that on the-29th day of October, 1991, I sent a copy of 

the foregoing document 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; 
Rolando Rios, Southwest Voter Registration & Education Project, 201 
N. St. Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonic, Texas 78205; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 
16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 7800 
N. Mopac, Suite 215, Austin, Texas 78750; Edward B. Cloutman, III, 
3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; E. Brice Cunningham, 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121, Dallas, Texas 75203; J. 
Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 3500 NCNB Center, 700 
Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & 
Luce, 1717 Main Street, Suite 2800, Dallas, Texas 75201; Jessica 
Dunsay Silver, Department of Justice, P. O. Box 66078, Washington, D. 
C. 20035-6078; Susan Finkelstein, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 405 N. 
St. Mary's, Suite 910, San Antonio, Texas 78205; David R. Boyd, Balch 
& Bingham, P. O. Box 78, Montgomery, Alabama 36101; Susan E. Russ, 
Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, One Commerce Street, Suite 802, 

 



  

Montgomery, Alabama 36104; Fournier J. Gale, III, Maynard, Cooper, 
Frierson & Gale, 2400 AmSouth Tower - Harbert Plaza 1901 6th 
Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama 361010; Walter S. Turner, Office 
of the Attorney General, 11 South Union Street, Room 303, 
Montgomery, Alabama 36130; Tom Maness, Jefferson County 
Courthouse, Beaumont, Texas 77701; Seagal V. Wheatley, 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 711 Navarro, 
Sixth Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205; and Russell Ww. Miller, 3300 
Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002. 

per Hock 
    Renea Hicks hl

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.