State's Response to Appellant Wood's Motion for Divided Argument
Public Court Documents
October 30, 1991
5 pages
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