Notice of Appeal; Order Re: Joint Motions for Proposed Interim Plan

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR 
$ WesTERx DisTRICY OF TEXAS 

Post Office Box 10708 
Midland, Texas ‘79702 

  

CHARLES W. VAGNER 

CiLznx oF COunY 

JANUARY 2, 1990 

Mr. Gilbert ¥. Ganucheau, Clerk 

U. S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit 

Room 102, 600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

IN RE: LULAC, ET AL vs JIM MATTOX, ET AL | 
a -———— le LB corre veiw moe ai A AE Fm i | 

Dear Sir: 

In connection with this appeal, the following documents are transmitted. 
Please acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter. 

Ecertified copy of the notice of appeal and docket entries, 

Ocertified copy of notice of cross-appeal and docket entries. 

record on appeal consisting of: Volume(s) of the record; 

_Volume(s) of the transcript; _ container(s) of exhibits/depositionms, 

supplemental record, including updated docket entries. 

Ocopy of CJA-20 appointing counsel. 

Bother: EXTRA COPY OF LETTER FOR RETURN 
  

In regard to the notice of appeal, the following additional information is 
furnished: 

Brhe Court of Appeals docket fee XXHAS HAS NOT been paid.   

[Orbis case is proceeding in forma pauperis. 
  

[Da1though the Court of Appeals docket fee was not paid at the time the 
notice of appeal was filed, it was PAID on 

  

[(Doistrict Judge /Magistrate entering the final judgment is LUCIUS D. BUNTON, III | 
  

zourt reporter assigned to this case is JIMMY SMITH 
  

Che criminal case,number and names of defendants 
  

  

[J his case was decided without a hearing, and, therefore, there will be no 

transcript. 

CC: Judge Bunton Very truly yours, 

Jimmy Smith 

Kathy Long 2 J ah] 

Attorneys of Record   
Deputy Clerk 

 



: ® » | 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F i L E D 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

  

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION JAN 2 1980 

U. 8. DISTRICT COURT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN § a CLERK'S OFFICE 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et _al., § / Ae 

§ 
Plaintiffs, § 

8 CIVIL ACTION NO. 
Vv. § MO-88~CA-154 

§ 
JIM MATTOX, et al,, § 

S 
Defendants. § 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that Defendant-Intervenor Dallas 

County District Judge F. Harold Entz hereby appeals to the 

I
.
 

a
 

e
e
 

A
 

RT 
A
 

0 
F
F
 
W
S
 

E
P
 

3 
3 

EM
 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the 

Court's Order of January 2, 1990. 

Respectfully submitted, 

obert H. Mow, 

David C, Godbey 

Bobby M. Rubarts 
Esther R. Rosenblum 

  

of HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 935-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 
COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
1 certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served upon all counsel of record in accordance 
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this _ ad day of 

\ January, 1990. Tom, 

\ 1 IW & Ti ge 
{ 

  

NOTICE OF APPEAL -- SOLO PAGE 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F | L - D 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS : 

JAN 27 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

DISTRICT COURT 

IKE OFFICE 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN vee. s DEPUTY 
CITIZENS (LULAC), COUNCIL #4434 
et al., 

Plaintiffs 
and 

HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 
et al., 

Plaintiff-Intervenors 

Ve. MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
State Defendants 

and 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD and 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 

  

BEFORE THIS COURT are the parties with their respective Pro- 

posed Interim Plans, Motions to Certify this Court's Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, of November 8, 1989, for Interlocutory Appeal, 

and Motion of Bexar County District Judges to Intervene in the 

above captioned cause. 

This case is reminiscent of several lines of a recent song, 

I'm for Love, by Hank Williams, Jr. The lyric goes, 
  

"The city is against the county, 
The county is against the state, 
The state is against the government, and 
The highway still ain't paved." 

In this case the Governor has been against the Attorney  



  

General, the Attorney General against the Legislature, the Judges 

against this Court, and the system is still flawed. This is a 

regrettable situation, but it can't be helped. The Hank 

Williams song goes on to say "But I'm for love, and I'm for 

happiness.” 

This case was filed on July 11, 1988 and originally set for 

trial on February 13, 1989. The Court was persuaded, at least 

on one occasion, to continue the trial to give the Texas 

Legislature a chance to address the issue during its Regular 

Session. This Court continued the above captioned cause to April 

17, 1989 to await the United States Supreme Court's disposi- 

tion of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Roemer 

v. Chisom. The Court again continued the case to July 11, 1989, 
  

based on oral Motions to Continue made on the record during a 

hearing on Motions to Intervene held by this Court on February 

27, 1989. The Court continued the trial to September 18, 1989, 

because of a conflict of settings with one of the attorneys. At 

the conclusion of the trial in September, the Court was requested 

to hand down its opinion prior to the convening of the Texas 

Legislature in Special Session so that a violation (if one was 

indeed found) could be looked at and perhaps remedied during the 

Special Session. 

This Court specifically reserved ruling upon Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for an Order enjoining further use of the at-large elec- 

tion scheme in the affected counties until the State Legislature 

a 

 



  

had an opportunity to offer a remedial plan. The Legislature 

went into Special Session on November 13, 1989, some five days 

after entry of this Court's November 8, 1989 Order. Governor 

Clements deemed it advisable not to submit the question of judi- 

cial redistricting to the Special Session. The Governor did, 

however, request that he and this Court meet and discuss the 

matter. The meeting was held, and attorneys for both Plaintiffs 

and Defendants were present. The Governor advised the Court that 

no remedy would be forthcoming until some time after the March 

13, 1990 Primary Elections. The Governor requested that the 

matter be delayed until the Regular Session of the Legislature in 

January 1991. He further advised the Court that, if this was not 

satisfactory, he would call a Special Session some time in April 

or May of 1990 and request the Legislature to study and take 

whatever action might be necessary to remedy the situation. 

The timing is perhaps unfortunate. There will be a census 

taken in 1990, which may reflect some changes in population in 

the nine counties involved. Our Legislature meets in Regular 

Session only in odd years and inevitably somewhere down the line 

the method of selection or election of State District Judges will 

have to be submitted to the voters of Texas. The Court is of the 

opinion that a delay until after the Primary Elections are held 

in 1990 and a delay until after a Special Session of the 

Legislature is held in late spring of 1990 and a further delay of 

implementation of any solution by the Legislature would not be in 

ig Tl 

 



  

the interest of justice, would further dilute the rights of 

minority voters in the target counties in question, and would be 

inequitable and work an even greater hardship on the judges and 

courts involved. 

Because the Legislature took no action on the matter in Spe- 

cial Session in November and December, 1989, and the refusal of 

the Supreme Court to grant a writ in Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 
  

1186, 1192 (5th Cir. 1988), and the statements of the Governor of 

the State of Texas, and the imminence of the Primary Elections in 

1990, the Court is not inclined to defer action. See Wise v. 
  

Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978). Under these circumstances, this 

Court is of the opinion that it may fashion an interim plan that 
  

the law, equity and justice require. Chisom, supra, at 1192. On 
  

December 12, 1989, or shortly thereafter, all parties were 

advised to file any Proposed Plans and Objections with the Court 

by December 22, 1989. An Agreed Settlement was entered into by 

and between the Plaintiffs and Defendants in this matter, but was 

not approved by some of the Intervenors. 

The Court should point out that the State Legislature will 

have still a third opportunity to propose a permanent remedy con- 

sistent with this Court's November 8, 1989 Order should it con- 

vene, and should it pass legislation in April or May of 1990. 

The plan which follows is strictly an interim plan for the 

1990 elections affecting 115 State District Court judicial seats 

in the nine counties in action. Upon consideration of the 

br 

 



Motions, Responses, Objections, letters, exhibits, attachments 

and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the 

following Orders are appropriate. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion of Plaintiffs, Plaintiff- 

Intervenors and the Attorney General of Texas for Entry of a Pro- 

posed Interim Plan is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 

in the following respects: 

1. All Defendants and those acting in concert are hereby 

enjoined from calling, holding, supervising and certifying elec- 

tions for State District Court Judges in Harris, Dallas, 

Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and Midland 

Counties under the current at-large scheme. 

2. For the 1990 elections, according to the Secretary of 

State of Texas, one hundred fifteen (115) District Court 

elections are scheduled in the counties affected by this Court's 

Order. The following number of District Courts are up for elec- 

tion by respective county: Harris (36); Dallas (32); Tarrant 

(14); Bexar (13); Travis (6); Jefferson (6); Lubbock (3); Ector 

(3); and Midland (2). 

Under this Interim Plan, District Court Elections in Harris, 

Dallas, Tarrant and Bexar Counties shall be selected from 

existing State Legislative House District lines as indicated in 

Attachment A. District Court Elections in Travis County shall 

be from existing Justice of the Peace Precinct Lines. See 

Attachment A. District Court Elections in Jefferson, Lubbock, 

«5's  



Ector and Midland Counties shall be according to existing County 

Commissioner Precinct Lines. Id. Each county shall be designated 

by a District Number, and each election unit by subdistrict 

number. 

3. Each candidate shall run within a designated subdistrict 

and be elected by the voters in the subdistrict. Consistent with 

the Texas Constitution, each candidate must be a resident of his 

or her designated judicial district (which is countywide), but 

need not be a resident of the election subdistrict. 

4, Elections shall be non-partisan. Each candidate shall 

select the election subdistrict in which he or she will run by 

designated place. Candidates in Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Ector 

and Midland Counties shall file an application for a place on the 

election ballot with the County Elections Administrator. Tex. 

Elec. Code Ann. 831.031 et seq. (Vernon 1986). Candidates in 

Harris, Travis, Jefferson and Lubbock Counties shall file such an 

application with the County Clerk of those counties or the County 

Tax Assessor-Collector, depending on the practice of that par- 

ticular county. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §831.1031 et seq., 31.091 

(Vernon 1986). 

5. All terms of office under this Interim Plan shall be for 

four (4) years. Tex. Const. Art. V, §87 (1976, amended 1985). 

This Court is of the opinion that a two-year term is unfair to 

both those beginning and those ending their judicial careers. 

6. Elections shall take place the first Saturday of May, 

- if -  



  

1990, with Run-off Elections to take place the first Saturday of 

June, 1990. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §41.001(b)(5) (Vernon Supp. 

1989). 

7. An application for a place on the non-partisan election 

ballot must be filed not later than 6:00 p.m. on March 26, 1990. 

Except as modified herein, all provisions of the Texas Election 

Code shall be applicable to the non-partisan elections herein 

ordered. 

8. In 1991, the Administrative Judge of the countywide 

district shall designate: 

(1) Any courts of specialization in terms of 

docket preference; and 

(2) The District Court numbers in use prior to 

the Interim Plan's adoption. Successful incumbents 

shall have preference in such designation. 

9. Current jurisdiction and venue of the District Courts 

remain unaffected, subject to modification by rule of the Supreme 

Court of Texas. 

10. There shall be no right of recusal of judges elected 

under this plan. This Court is of the view that such a measure 

would be extremely disruptive to District Court dockets, admin- 

istratively costly and could be the source of abuse by attorneys 

attempting to gain continuances of their cases. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above Interim Plan applies 
  

only to the 1990 State District Court Judicial Elections in the 

+7 5 

 



  

nine target counties at issue in this case. If the Texas Legis- 

lature fails to fashion a permanent remedy by way of a Special 

Called Session in the spring of 1990, then this Court will put 

into effect a Permanent Plan for the election of State District 

Court Judges in the nine target counties in question. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions of Defendant- 

Intervenor JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, Defendant-Intervenor JUDGE HAROLD 

ENTZ and the State Defendants to Certify this Court's Memorandum 

Opinion and Order of November 8, 1989 as modified for clerical 

corrections on November 27, 1989 and December 26, 1989 for 

Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) is hereby 

GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that such Motions 

request a stay of further proceedings in the above captioned 

cause such Motions are hereby DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Bexar County Judges 

TOM RICKOFF, SUSAN D. REED, JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., SID L. HARLE, 

SHARON MACRAE and MICHAEL P. PEDEN to Intervene as Defendants in 

the above captioned cause is hereby DENIED. 

This Court, of course, has granted the right for an Interloc- 

utory Appeal. The request to stay proceedings pending the appeal 

is DENIED, because the Court does not feel that District Judges 

should be continued in office for an indefinite period of time. 

The right of the electorate to select judges in the year 1990 

should not be denied unless, of course, interim action is 

-5- 

 



  

taken by the Texas Legislature which changes the method of the 

selection and election of judges. The pressing need for the 

administration of justice in our state courts is recognized. It 

is the opinion of this Court that the plan set forth herein is 

the least disruptive that can be effected at this juncture. To 

allow Primary Elections in 1990 to be held in the same manner as 

they were in 1988 would be contra to the dictates of Fifth 

Circuit law and the Congressional Mandate of the Voting Rights 

Acts. Recognition that the November 8, 1989 Judgment has far- 

reaching effects is the reason for the allowance of an expedited 

appeal, and again the Court would encourage the Governor to call 

a Special Session to address the matter and, further, would 

request that the State Legislature remedy the current situation, 

as the Court is firmly of the opinion that any remedy other than 

this interim remedy should be done by duly elected legislators. 

SIGNED and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1990. 

p, ~ 
wr! ~~ 7 / = 

A /4, ile 
C CrCl tr) Nn, > V Now -€ “J o i ae 

  

  

UCIUS D. BUNTON 
KLhief Judge 

 



Attachment A 

  

HARRIS COUNTY 

(District 401) 

  
  

  

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 

PLACE NUMBER COUNTY NUMBER 

1 401 Harris *HD-125 

2 401 Harris HD-126 

3 401 Harris HD-127 

4 401 Harris HD-128 

5 401 Harris HD-129 

6 401 Harris HD-130 

7 401 Harris HD-131 

8 401 Harris HD-132 

9 401 Harris HD-133 

10 401 Harris HD-134 

11 401 Harris HD-135 

12 401 Harris HD-136 

13 401 Harris HD-137 

14 401 Harris HD-138 

15 401 Harris HD-139 

16 401 Harris HD-140 

¥7 401 Harris HD-141 

18 401 Harris HD-142 

19 401 Harris HD-143 

20 401 Harris HD-144 

2 401 Harris HD-145 

22 401 Harris HD-146 

23 401 Harris HD-147 

2 401 Harris HD-148 

2 401 Harris HD-149 

26 401 Harris HD-150 

2 401 Harris HD-132 

2 401 Harris HD-139 

2 401 Harris HD-147 

30 401 Harris HD-148 

31 401 Harris HD-131 

32 401 Harris HD-146 

33 401 Harris HD-143 

34 401 Harris HD-142 

35 401 Harris HD-141 

3 401 Harris HD-138 

* "HD" indicates Texas House of Representatives Districts 

 



  

DALLAS COUNTY 

(District 402) 

  

  

402 Dallas 

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 
PLACE NUMBER COUNTY NUMBER 
1 402 Dallas HD-98 
2 402 Dallas HD-99 
3 402 Dallas HD-100 
4 402 Dallas HD-101 
5 402 Dallas HD-102 
6 402 Dallas HD-103 
7 402 Dallas HD-104 
8 402 Dallas HD-105 
9 402 Dallas HD-106 
| 402 Dallas HD-107 

402 Dallas HD-108 

402 Dallas HD-109 

402 Dallas HD-110 

402 Dallas HD-111 

402 Dallas HD-112 

402 Dallas HD-113 
402 Dallas HD-114 
402 Dallas HD-100 

402 Dallas HD-114 

402 Dallas HD-111 
402 Dallas HD-110 
402 Dallas HD-102 
402 Dallas HD-108 

402 Dallas HD-107 

402 Dallas HD-106 
402 Dallas HD-105 

402 Dallas HD-104 

402 Dallas HD-103 
402 Dallas HD-98 
402 Dallas HD-99 
402 Dallas HD-101 

HD-109 

 



  

TARRANT COUNTY 

(District 403) 

  

DISTRICT 

PLACE NUMBER COUNTY 

1 403 Tarrant 

2 403 Tarrant 

3 403 Tarrant 

4 403 Tarrant 

5 403 Tarrant 
6 403 Tarrant 

7 403 Tarrant 
8 403 Tarrant 

J, 403 Tarrant 
10 403 Tarrant 

11 403 Tarrant 

}2 403 Tarrant 

13 403 Tarrant 

14 403 Tarrant 

SUBDIST. 

HD-89 

HD-90 

HD-91 

HD-92 

HD-93 
HD-94 

HD-95 

HD-96 

HD-97 

HD-90 

HD-95 

HD-94 

HD-93 
HD-92 

 



: 

BEXAR COUNTY 

(District 404) 

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 

NUMBER COUNTY NUMBER 

404 Bexar HD-115 

404 Bexar HD-120 

404 Bexar HD-116 

404 Bexar HD-124 

404 Bexar HD-123 

404 Bexar HD-122 

404 Bexar HD-121 

404 Bexar HD-118 

404 Bexar HD-124 

404 Bexar HD-117 

404 Bexar HD-119 

404 Bexar HD-118 

404 Bexar HD-115 

: 
OO
 

00
 

~~
 

ON
 

Wn
 
B
A
W
 

»—
 

10 

Ll} 
12 

13 

 



TRAVIS COUNTY 

(District 405) 

  

    
  

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 

PLACE NUMBER COUNTY NUMBER 

1 405 Travis **IJP-1 

*; 405 Travis JP-2 

3 405 Travis JP-3 

4 405 Travis JP-4 

5 405 Travis JP-5 

6 405 Travis JP-4 

  

ok 
"JP" indicates Justice of the Peace Precincts 

 



JEFFERSON COUNTY 

(District 406) 

  

  

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 
PLACE NUMBER QOUNTY NUMBER 
] 406 Jefferson lg BA 
2 406 Jefferson CC-2 

3 406 Jefferson CC-3 

4 406 Jefferson CC-4 

5 406 Jefferson CC-4 

6 406 Jefferson CC-3 

  

Ra 

"CC" indicates County Commissioner Precincts 

 



  

PLACE 

t
l
 

Ww
 

9
 

LUBBOCK COUNTY 

(District 407) 

DISTRICT 

NUMBER UNTY 

407 Lubbock 

407 Lubbock 

407 Lubbock 

SUBDIST. 
NUMBER 
  

CC-3 
CC-4 
CC-2 

 



ECTOR COUNTY 

(District 408) 

  

  
  

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 
PLACE NUMBER QOUNTY NUMBER 
] 408 Ector CC-2 
2 408 Ector CC.3 

3 408 Ector CC-4 

 



MIDLAND COUNTY 

(District 409) 

DISTRICT SUBDIST. 

NUMBER QOUNTY NUMBER 

409 Midland CC-3 

400 Midland CC4