Motion of Plaintiff-Intervenor HLA for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Wood's Motion to Compel; Order Granting Motion; Memorandum in Support

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), et al., 

PLAINTIFFS, 

vS. No. 88-CA-154 

JAMES MATTOX, et al., 

DEFENDANTS. 

MOTION OF PIAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOUSTON LAWYERS’ 
ASSOCIATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION 

OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD’S 
MOTION TO COMPEL 

  

  

Now comes the Houston Lawyers’ Association submitting this 

Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Court’s Order granting 

Defendant-Intervenor Wood’s Motion to Compel, and respectfully 

pray that the court grant the plaintiff-intervenors’ motion and 

reconsider its order requiring that the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association provide defendant-intervenor Wood with a list of 

first names of the members of the Houston Lawyers’ Association. 

As grounds therefore, the Houston Lawyers’ Association 

state the following: 

1. On August 16, 1989 Judge Lucius D. Bunton, in response to a 

complex series of Motions to Compel filed by Defendant 

Intervenor, Judge Sharolyn Wood on April 6, 1989, amended on June 

 



® | » 

26, 1989, and supplemented against Plaintiffs on July 18, 1989 

ordered Plaintiffs LULAC and plaintiff-intervenors Houston 

Lawyers’ Association to provide defendant-intervenor Wood with a 

list of the first names of the members of their respective 

organizations. 1 The court concluded that plaintiffs and 

plaintiff-intervenors must provide this data to the defendant- 

intervenor Wood in order to satisfy the requirement under 

Thornburg Vv. Gingles, that the minority group challenging an 

electoral system demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to consitute a majority in a single-member 

district. 

2. Defendant-intervenor Wood in a Request to Produce served on 

February 28, 1989, sought to discover the membership list of the 

Houston Lawyers’ Association. In response to that request, 

plaintiff-intervenor Houston Lawyers’ Association on March 17, 

1989 objected to that request on the grounds that as an 

organization the HLA may assert the rights of its members in 

accordance with NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415, 427 (1963);   

Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston Lawyers’ Association’s 

Response to Defendant-Intervenor Wood’s First Set of 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, at pp. 

4-5, attached. Also in response to that request, the Houston 
  

lattorney for Plaintiff-intervenor received a faxed copy of 
the court’s order on the defendant-intervenor’s Motion to Compel 
on August 22, 1989. A copy of the order was received by 
plaintiff-intervenors’ attorney from the court on Sept. 1, 1989.  



  

Lawyers’ Association plaintiff-intervenors provided defendant- 

intervenor Wood with a list of the names and positions of the 

officers of the HIA. ee Plaintiff-intervenors Response to 

Request to Produce No. 4 at p.5, attached. 

3. Although defendant-intervenor Wood in her April 6th Motion to 

Compel and her July 18th supplement to her Motion to Compel 

Discovery from the Original Plaintiffs in this action sought to 

compel the LULAC plaintiffs to provide their membership lists in 

order to determine if LULAC had standing to raise its claims in 

each of the challenged counties, defendant-intervenor Wood in 

neither her April 6th nor in her June 26th order sought to compel 

the production of the membership list of the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association, since the HLA challenged the district judge 

electoral system in only Harris County, where all HIA members 

reside. See attached Defendant-intervenor Wood’s Motion to 

Compel Discovery from the Houston Lawyers’ Association, and 

Defendant-intervenor Wood’s Motion for Response to Objections and 

Amended Motion to Compel Discovery from the Houston Lawyers’ 

Assocation. 

4. The State Defendants in this action have never sought to 

discover the membership list of the Houston Lawyers’ Association. 

S. Plaintiff-intervenors seek reconsideration of the court’s 

order on the ground that provision of the HIA’s membership list 

 



  

» 

is not required by Thornburg wv. Gingles. While _ Thornburg v. 

  

  

Gingles requires that plaintiffs demonstrate that pinority voters 

in the challenged jurisdiction are sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to comprise a majority of the population 

in a single member district, it is not required that a plaintiff 

organization demonstrate that their membership alone could 

comprise a majority Black single member district in the relevant 

jurisdiction. 

6. Plaintiff-intervenors also request that the court reconsider 

its order on the grounds that the Houston Lawyers’ Association 

may assert the claims of its members and as such there is no 

issue or question of standing raised by the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association’s intervention in this lawsuit. 

7: Finally, plaintiff-intervenors request that the court grant 

this motion on the grounds that provision of the HIA’s membership 

list will in no way facilitate discovery or factual development 

in this case, and will have a chilling effect on the members of 

the HLA from engaging in constitutionally protected activity. 

WHEREFORE, The Houston Lawyers’ Association plaintiff- 

intervenor respectfully requests that this Court grant their 

motion for reconsideration. 

 



  

JULIE CHAMBERY 
SHE N RR A. IFILL 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. McDONALD 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 301 Congress Avenue 
A Professional Corporation Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 
(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff- 

Intervenors, Houston 

Lawyers' Association 

Dated: September 1, 1989 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

Sup ———E il a is a GAA IN NIG xX 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Houston Lawyers’ Association, Alice 
Bonner, Weldon Berry, Francis Williams, 
Rev. William Lawson, Deloyd T. Parker, 
Bennie McGinty, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

vs. No. 88-CA-154 

JAMES MATTOX, Attorney General of the 
State of Texas, et al., 

Defendants. 
Dm ——— "Gh CED GE SG CE SD GG SG GED Gu GD GED SE ED GED GED = = = = — 3 

ORDER GRANTING 
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT- 
INTERVENOR WOOD’S MOTION TO COMPEL 
  

BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day came on to be considered 

the Motion of Plaintiff-Intervenors for Partial Reconsideration 

of Order Granting Defendant-Intervenor Wood’s Motion to Compel in 

the above-entitled and numbered cause, and the Court having 

considered same and being of the opinion that same should be 

granted; 

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 

Plaintiff-Intervenors are granted their Motion for Partial 

Reconsideration in the above-entitled and numbered cause of 

action. 

SIGNED this day of , 1989. 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of September, 1989, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-intervenors 

Houston Lawyers’ Association’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration 

of Order Granting Defendant-Intervenor Wood’s Motion to Compel, 

Memorandum in Support thereof, and Order was mailed by Federal 

Express to J. Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, 

Suite 3500, Houston, TX 77002-2730, and State Defendant Jim 

Mattox, Renea Hicks, et al., Attorney General’s Office, 1401 

Colorado, Supreme Court Building, 7th Floor, Austin, TX 78701, 

and by first class United States mail, postage pre-paid, to other 

counsel of record in this case as follows: 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 

David R. Richards 
Rolando L. Rios Special Counsel 
Southwest Voter Registration 

Education Project 
201 N. St. Mary’s, Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. Sst. Mary’s, Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & 

Cloutman, P.C. 
3301 Elm 

Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

600 W. 7th st. 

Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, TX 75201 

ii A 
 fasyrily  HE11l 

C 

  

ounsel f Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers Association  



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), et al., 

PLAINTIFFS, 

VS. No. 88-CA-154 

MEMORANDUM CF IAW IN SUPPORT OF 
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOUSTON IAWYERS'’ 

ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF 
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

  

  

  

  

  

A. Compelling Disclosure of the HIA’S Membership 
List Will Have a Chilling Effect on the 
Activities of the Organization. 

  

  

  

As the Court noted in its August 16th ruling on defendant- 

intervenor Wood’s Motion to Compel, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the right of members of an association to be 

"protected from compelled disclosure... of their affiliation 

with the Association as revealed by ... membership lists." NAACP 

Vv. Alabama, 357 US 449, 458 (1958). This right is clearly at 

issue in that case at hand, where the defendant-intervenor, a 

sitting district judge in the relevant jurisdiction, elected 

under the current at large electoral system, seeks to discover 

the membership 1list of the organization of Black attorneys 

challenging that electoral system. The HLA continues to view 

1 

 



  

w ¢ 

this request as a threat to the organization and its members, 

many of hem are likely to appear before defendant-intervenor 

Wood in the course of their professional practice in Harris 

County. Like in Alabama, "the compelled disclosure of [the 

HIA’s] membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of 

[the HLA] and its members to pursue their collective effort to 

foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, 

in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association 

and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure 

of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the 

consequences of this exposure." Id at 462-463. 

Even the first names of the HLA’s members is sufficient to 

clearly identify members. The president of the HLA for instance, 

Algenita Scott-Davis, previously identified in HIA’s First 

Response to Defendant-Intervenor Wood’s First Set of 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, has 

such a distinctive first name that disclosure of her given name 

alone is sufficient for identification purposes. The same is 

true of the HIA’s corresponding secretary, also previously 

identified, Mr. McKen Carrington. Many other members of the HLA 

have similarly distinctive given names. 

The disclosure of the HILA’s membership list would also be 

particularly onerous, when the release of this information is not 

required under Thornburg v. Gingles, and when no standing issue   

as to the HLA has been raised or is at issue. 

 



  

B. Plaintiffs Must Demonstrate that Minority Voters 
in the Relevant Jurisdiction Satisfy the 

First Prong of Gingles 

  

  

The first prong of Gingles requires that plaintiffs 

demonstrate that minority voters in the challenged jurisdiction 

are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a 

majority in a single-member district. 478 US at 50. Individual 

plaintiffs, or plaintiff organizations are not required by 

Gingles to demonstrate that the members of their particular 

organizations would comprise a single member district in the 

challenged jurisdiction. The Houston Lawyers’ Association for 

instance, is a seventy (70) member organization, which seeks to 

protect the interests of its members as Black voters in Harris 

  

County to participate equally in the political process and elect 

candidates of their choice in Harris County district judge 

elections. See Complaint in Intervention of Houston Lawyers’ 

Association, et al at P- 1, attached. The HLA has never 

claimed that its seventy members alone should or could comprise a 

single member judicial district in Harris County. Therefore, the 

provision of the first names of HLA members could not satisfy the 

first prong of Gingles. 

Instead the proper inquiry is whether Black voters residing 

in Harris County, are sufficiently large and geographically 

compact to form a majority in a single member district in the 

county. In LUILAC v. Midland Independent School District for   

3 

 



  

example, the appellees had to demonstrate and the court found 

"that the Blacks and Hispanics in Midland constitute a 
  

sufficiently large and geographically compact group to 

constitute a majority in a single-member district." 648 F.Supp. 

596 (W.D. Tex. 1986) (J. Bunton) (emphasis added), aff’d, 812 

F.24 1494 (5th Cir. 1987). In making that determination, the 

court looked at the ethnic breakdown of the entire population of 

Midland and the racial breakdown of the voting population of 

county by electoral precincts. 648 F.Supp. at 605. The appellees 

were not required in that case to show that the actual members of 

the League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4836, 

and the members of the Black Advisory Council, both incorporated 

organizations serving as plaintiffs, were sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to satisfy the first prong of the Gingles 

test. Similarly, in a voting rights case brought by one 

plaintiff, that one individual need not assert that they alone 

would constitute a single member district in the challenged 

jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff-intervenors in the case at hand are prepared to 

demonstrate that Black voters in Harris County do meet the 

requirements of Gingles first prong, and have submitted to all 

counsel maps illustrating at least thirteen (13) single member 

districts in which Black voters in Harris County could comprise a 

majority of the voting age population for the election of 

district judges. The provision of maps which outline and 

describe the location of proposed majority Black or minority 

 



  

single members districts in the challenged jurisdiction have 

become the standard method of satisfying the first Gingles 

requirement. 

C. No Standing Question Is at Issue as to the HIA 
  

Defendant-intervenor Wood first requested the names of the 

members of the HLA in her First Set of Interrogatories and 

Requests for Production of Documents to the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association on February 28, 1989. The HLA objected to that 

request on the ground that the HLA as an organization may assert 

the rights of its members, citing NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415, 

  

427 (1963). Since then, in neither her original Motion to 

Compel nor her Amended Motion to Compel has defendant-intervenor 

Wood sought to compel the Houston Lawyers’ Association to release 

its membership list. Defendant-intervenor Wood has sought to 

compel the list of LULAC members from the original plaintiffs in 

this action in order to determine if the original plaintiffs had 

standing to seek relief in each of the counties whose electoral 

systems are challenged by this lawsuit. 

Defendant-intervenor Wood has never challenged the standing 

of the HLA to assert a voting rights claim on behalf of its 

members in Harris County. Unlike LULAC plaintiffs, the HLA 

plaintiffs have limited their challenge in the case at hand to 

only Harris County, the jurisdiction in which all individual 

 



  

* » 

plaintiff-intervenors and members of the HLA reside. Thus no 

standing question is at issue. 

D. Defendant-intervenor Wood has been Provided with 
Data Sufficient to Discover Relevant Information 
About the Houston Lawyers’ Association 

  

  

  

In response to defendant-intervenor Wood’s request however, 

the HLA intervenors submitted to defendant-intervenor Wood the 

names and positions of the all of the officers of the Houston 

Lawyers’ Association. See, Plaintiff-intervenors Houston 

Lawyers’ Association’s First Response to Defendant-intervenor 

Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

of Documents, Request to Produce No. 4 and Response No. 4, 

attached. Defendant-intervenor Wood has had every opportunity 

since March 17th, when these responses were served, to depose or 

otherwise seek information from the HIA’s officers if they 

desired additional information about the organization or its 

members. Defendant-intervenor Wood has declined to depose or 

otherwise discover any information from the named officers of the 

HLA. The defendant-intervenor has deposed five other members of 

the HLA however, four of whom are individual named plaintiffs in 

this lawsuit. Defendant-intervenor Wood has seemingly abandoned 

her attempt to discover the HIA’s membership list by failing to 

seek information from the HLA’a named officers, deposing and 

 



  

k 4 

discovering information 

declining to include production of the HLA’s membership list in 

her motions to compel. 

In light of .the 

intervenor’s request, 

names of the Houston Lawyers’ Association members will in no way 

assist in discovery or the factual development of this case, 

not required by 

intervenors 

intrusive 

Thornburg Vv Gingles, 

chilling effect warned against in NAACP v. Alabama, 

Houston Lawyers’ 

9 

from five other 

nature of the 

the fact that the provision of the first 

  

that the Court reconsider its August 16th order. 

Of Counsel: 

MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 
A Professional Corporation 

September 1, 1989 

Respectfully submitted, 

JULIUS [Eons CHAMBERS 
SHERRIL « IFILL 
NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
16th Floor 
New York, NY 
(212) 219-1900 

    

   
     

10013 

GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 
301 Congress Avenue 
Suite 2050 
Austin, TX 78701 
(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff- 
Intervenors 

Houston Lawyers’ Association 

  

HLA members, 

-defendant- 

and may result in the 

plaintiff- 

Association respectfully request