Intervenors/Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene; Order Granting Intervention; Complaint in Intervention; Order Granting Intervention

    MuLLINAX, WELLS, BaaB & CLouTMAN, P.C. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

3301 ELM STREET/DALLAS TEXAS 75226-1637 

  

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, Ill Febr uary 28 / 1989 PHONE (214) 939-9222 

Board Certified-Labor Law METRO 263-1547 
Texas Board of Legal Specialization TELECOPIER (214) 939-9229 

Ms. Sherrilynn Ifill 
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense 

& Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, New York 10013 

RE: LULAC, et al. vs. Clements, 

et al. 

Dear Ms. Ifill: 

Enclosed please find a copy of Intervenors/Plaintiffs' 
Motion for Leave to Intervene, Complaint in Intervention and 
Order which Mr. Cloutman requested I forward to you in regard 
to the above referenced matter. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate 
to call. 

Very truly yours, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 
& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 

Ws pi tl) 
ERthy atrick 
f ward B. Cloutman 

  

  

/K1p 
Encl. 

   



J 

€ C B® 

cov | RECEIVED 

  

  

  
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAK 311988 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION CHARLES. VAGNER, Clerk | 

Deputy 
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN By ig pry.’     AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), —Y 

COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 

#4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 

AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR. 

and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of MO-88-CA-154 
the State of Texas, JIM 
MATTOX, Attorney General of 
the State of Texas, JACK 
RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 
Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 
of the 1st Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th N
W
N
 

A
W
 
W
A
D
A
 

WD
 

WA
 
A
W
A
 

WA
 
D
A
W
A
 

A 
A 

A 
W
A
 

I)
 

WA
 

A
 

I
 

A
 

A 
12
 

IA
 

1A
 

A 
I)

 
2)

 
1A
) 

LA
) 

2)
 

TA
) 

LA
) 
T
U
)
 

TL
) 

th
 

Cn
 

=
 

 



  

. C Co'® 

Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 

Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 

President, Texas Judicial 
Council, all in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 
of Texas, 

A
W
W
 
W
W
W
 

WA
 
W
A
L
A
 

W
A
L
A
 

WL
 

WA
 

Defendants. 

INTERVENORS/PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 
  

Pursuant to Rule 24(a) and (b), F.R.C.P., movants 

Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley and Joan Winn White move this Court 

for an Order allowing them to intervene as parties/plaintiffs 

in the above referenced action and as basis for their interven- 

tion would show the Court as follows: 

1. Movants assert they have interests protected by 

Rule 24(a)(2), F.R.C.P., in that they assert an interest 

relating to the subject of the litigation herein and is so 

situated that disposition of this action as a practical matter 

may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest. 

Specifically, the ‘interest is that they were appointed a 

district judges for Dallas County, Texas, stood for reelection 

at large in the General Election and was defeated by white 

candidates. F | 

2. As former officials of the Texas judiciary, they 

have a unique interest in the outcome of this litigation. 

 



Moreover, they have a unique interest in any remedy this Court 

may ultimately direct in that they are eminently familiar with 

the demographics and judicial structure of the Dallas county 

district bench. They have an ongoing interest in the constitu- 

tional and lawful operation of the Dallas County district bench. 

3. Movants further claim rights pursuant to Rule 

24(b) (2), F.R.C.P., in that his claim herein presents questions 

of law and in fact in common with those raised by the original 

plaintiffs to this action. It may be fairly presumed that the 

defenses asserted before this Court will be the same defenses 

raised to claims made by Movants. 

4. Movants by this application do not desire to 

delay or postpone any hearings or scheduling orders of the 

Court. If allowed to intervened, they will comply with matters 

as per the Court's schedule. 

5 If permitted to intervene as plaintiffs in this 

matter, Movants would file the attached Complaint in Interven- 

tion appended hereto as Exhibit "A". 

Respectfully submitted, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 

& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

(214) 939-9222 

| Ri... a 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

By: 
   



  

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 
Attorney at Law 

777 So. R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 

Dallas, Texas 75203 

(214) 428-3793 

COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument has been served upon counsel of record, by 

placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 
Fn 

the say of January, 1989. 

dl], Ho = 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

 



  
  ( @ 

  

    
y VAGNER, Clerk CHARLES VAGN hh | IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

By put FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 
#4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 

AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR. 

and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

Vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of MO-88-CA-154 
the State of Texas, JIM 
MATTOX, Attorney General of 
the State of Texas, JACK 
RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 

Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 
of the 1st Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th N
W
A
 

W
A
N
A
K
A
 

W
I
A
 
W
W
 

IA
 

A
 

A
 

A 
A
W
A
 

A
I
A
 

W
A
 

IA
 

IA
 

A
 

A
 

A
 

A
 

WA
 

IA
 

A 
A 

WA
 

IA
 

(2
 

10
) 

WA
 

A
 

A
 

LA
 

A
 

tA
 

WA
 
W
t
)
 

1 

 



  

Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 

President, Texas Judicial 
Council, All in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 
of Texas, 

Defendants. A
W
W
A
 
W
A
 
W
W
W
 

WA
 

WL
 
W
A
L
 

WD
 

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENTION 
  

Came on for consideration, Intervenors/Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Leave to Intervene and after having reviewed the 

pleadings, it is the opinion of this Court that said Motion is 

well taken, and it is therefore 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Intervenors/Plain- 

tiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene is hereby granted and the 

Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to file the Complaint in 

Intervention attached to said Motion as Exhibit "A" in this 

cause of action. 

SIGNED this the day of r 1989. 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 



MuLLiNnAX, WELLS, BaAAaB & CLouTMAN, P.C. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

3301 ELM STREET/DALLAS TEXAS 75226-1637 

  

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, Ill 

Board Certified-Labor Law 

Texas Board of Legal Specialization 

Februar PHONE (214) 939-9222 
y 28, 1989 METRO 263-1547 

TELECOPIER (214) 939-9229 

Ms. Sherrilynn Ifill 
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense 

& Education Fund 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, New York 10013 

RE: LULAC, et al. vs. Clements, 

et al. 

Dear Ms. Ifill: 

Enclosed please find a copy of Intervenors/Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Leave to Intervene, Complaint in Intervention and 

Order which Mr. Cloutman requested I forward to you in regard 

to the above referenced matter. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate 

  

to call. 

Very truly yours, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 

& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 

RT atrick 
ward B. Cloutman 

/K1p 
Encl. 

3 
on r——. 

 



- ! 
LJ 

o> 

   
J 

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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

    

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 

#4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 

AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR., 

and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of 
the State of Texas, JIM 
MATTOX, Attorney General of 
the State of Texas, JACK 
RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 
Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 
of the lst Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th WD
) 
D
W
)
 

WL
) 

WD
) 

1 
WD

) 
WD

) 
(
1
D
)
 

WD
) 

I)
 

(1
) 

1
 

A)
 
1)

 
WO

) 
(2
) 

WO
) 

TO
) 

(L
O)
 

(0
) 

2)
 

1)
 

LO
) 

WO
) 

LO
) 

TO
) 

LO
) 

1)
 

WO
) 

LO
) 

TO
) 

2)
 

WO
) 
T
T
)
 

TO
) 

2)
 

TO
) 

(O
D 

tO
) 

tO
) 

(
 

. 

  

  

| 

  
CHARLES. V Lod 

By Deputy 

RECEIVED 

JAN 31 1988 

  
  

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

MO-88-CA-154 

I'd 

FY 

\ 

 



  

® c ® 

Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 
President, Texas Judicial 
Council, All in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 
of Texas, 

N
A
D
A
 

D
A
W
N
 

Defendants. 

INTERVENORS /PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 
  

Pursuant to Rule 24(a) and (b), F.R.C.P., movants 

Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley and Joan Winn White move this Court 

for an Order allowing them to intervene as parties/plaintiffs 

in the above referenced action and as basis for their interven- 

tion would show the Court as follows: 

1. Movants assert they have interests protected by 

Rule 24(a) (2), F.R.C.P., in that they assert an interest 

relating to the subject of the litigation herein and is so 

situated that disposition of this action as a practical matter 

may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest. 

Specifically, the interest is that they were appointed a 

district judges for Dallas County, Texas, stood for reelection 

at large in the General Election and was defeated by white 

candidates. 

2. As former officials of the Texas judiciary, they 

have a unique interest in the outcome of this litigation. 

 



® » 

Moreover, they have a unique interest in any remedy this Court 

may ultimately direct in that they are eminently familiar with 

the demographics and judicial structure of the Dallas county 

district bench. They have an ongoing interest in the constitu- 

tional and lawful operation of the Dallas County district bench. 

3. Movants further claim rights pursuant to Rule 

24(b) (2), F.R.C.P., in that his claim herein presents questions 

of law and in fact in common with those raised by the original 

plaintiffs to this action. It may be fairly presumed that the 

defenses asserted before this Court will be the same defenses 

raised to claims made by Movants. 

4. Movants by this application do not desire to 

delay or postpone any hearings or scheduling orders of the 

Court. If allowed to intervened, they will comply with matters 

as per the Court's schedule. 

5. If permitted to intervene as plaintiffs in this 

matter, Movants would file the attached Complaint in Interven- 

tion appended hereto as Exhibit "A". 

Respectfully submitted, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 

& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 
(214) 939-9222 

‘A. [TC 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

By: 
   



  

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 

Attorney at Law 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument has been served upon counsel of record, by 

placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 
PR 

the "aay of January, 1989. 

Sak Cpu.» 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

 



  

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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 

#4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 
AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR., 

and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

JESSE OLIVER, FRED TINSLEY, 
and JOAN WINN WHITE, 

Intervenor-Plaintiffs, 

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of MO-88-CA-154 

the State of Texas, JIM 
MATTOX, Attorney General of 

the State of Texas, JACK 

RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 
Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 
of the lst Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, DN

 
WD

 
WD
 

WD
) 
W
W
 

W
D
)
 
W
W
)
 
A
W
 

A 
WD

) 
WN
 

A)
 

WD
) 

WA
 

WA
) 

LA
 

WA
 

WD
) 

(9
) 

WD
) 

(2
) 

(D
O)

 
(2
) 

(9
) 

WO
) 

WO
) 

2)
 
T
I
)
 

I)
 

WO
) 

2)
 

WI
) 

2)
 

(I
) 

(2
) 

(0
) 

t
y
 

I)
 

tA
) 

Wd
 

ft
 

EXHIBIT "A" 
  

 



® c @ 

  

Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 
President, Texas Judicial 
Council, All in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 

of Texas, 
WA
 

7 
N
W
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 
W
W
 

WA
 
W
W
W
 

WA
 
W
D
A
 

WD
 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 
  

I. Introduction 

}. Intervenors/plaintiffs Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley 

and Joan Winn White ("Intervenors") are former state district 

judges of Dallas County, and are Black citizens of the State of 

Texas. They bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 

1971, 1973, 1983 and 1988 to redress a denial, under color of 

state law, of rights, privileges or immunities secured to 

plaintiffs by the said laws and by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

| 2. Plaintiffs seek-a declaratory judgment that the 

existing at large scheme of electing district judges in Dallas 

County of the State of Texas violates plaintiffs' civil rights 

in that such method illegally and/or unconstitutionally dilutes 

 



® ¢ » 

the voting strength of Mexican-American and Black electors; 

plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction prohibiting the calling, 

holding, supervising or certifying any future elections for 

district judges under the present at large scheme in Dallas 

County; plaintiffs seek the formation of a judicial districting 

scheme by which district judges in the target counties are 

elected from districts are single member districts; plaintiffs 

seek costs and attorneys' fees. 

II. Jurisdiction 

3. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and 

(4), upon causes of action arising from 42 U.S.C. Section 1971, 

1973, 1983, and 1988, and under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Declaratory 

relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and 2202 and by 

Rule 57, F.R.C.P. 

III. Plaintiffs/Intervenors 

4. Plaintiffs Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley and Joan 

Winn White are Black citizens and registered voters of Dallas 

County, Texas. They are qualified to vote for district judges 

of Dallas County. Plaintiffs were appointed district judges who 

lost an at large election to a white opponent in Dallas County, 

Texas.  



IV. Defendants 

5. Defendant William Clements is the Governor of the 

State of Texas, and is the chief executive officer of the state 

and as such is charged with the responsibility to execute the 

laws of the state. Defendant Jim Mattox is the Attorney-General 

of the State of Texas, and is the chief law enforcement officer 

of the state and as such is charged with the responsibility to 

enforce the laws of the state. Defendant Jack Rains is the 

Secretary of State of the State of Texas, and is the chief 

elections officer of the state and as such is charged with the 

responsibility to administer the election laws of the state. 

Defendants Thomas R. Phillips, John F. Onion, Ron Chapman, 

Thomas J. Stovall, James F. Clawson, Jr., Joe E. Kelly, Joe B. 

Evins, Sam M. Paxson, Weldon Kirk, Charles J. Murray, Ray D. 

Anderson, and Joe Spurlock, II are members of the Judicial 

Districts Board created by Article V, Section 7a of the Texas 

Constitution, and pursuant to Article 24.941ff, Texas Revised 

Civil Statutes, have the duty to reapportion judicial districts 

within the State of Texas. 

V. Factual Allegations 

6. District judges are elected either from judicial 

districts which are coterminous with and wholly contained within 

a county, or from judicial districts which may be composed of 

several entire counties.  



  

® c( © 

7. In those counties which contain more than one 

judicial district, the present election system is an at large 

scheme with the equivalent of numbered places, the majority rule 

requirement, and staggered terms. 

8. The following counties upon information and 

belief, contain multiple judicial districts and a sufficiently 

compact minority population for the drawing of at least one 

majority combined minority single member district. 

Harris Lubbock 
Dallas Fort Bend 

Ector Smith 
McClennan Brazos 

Tarrant Brazoria 
Midland Taylor 
Travis Wichita 
Jefferson Angelina 
Galveston Gregg 
Bell 

9. The above counties contain some 190 judicial 

districts, and a combined minority population of almost 30%; 

however, only 10 or 5.3% of the 190 district judges are 

minority. 

10. The following counties contain multiple judicial 

districts and sufficient Black population for the drawing of at 

least one majority-Black single member district: 

Harris = Galveston 
Dallas Smith 
Tarrant Bell 
Jefferson McClennan 
Travis Gregg 
Brazos Fort Bend 

 



® c:.@ 

  

11. The above counties contain some 164 judicial 

districts, and a Black population of 16.4%; however, only 7 or 

4.3% of the 164 district judges are Black. 

12. The following counties contain multiple judicial 

districts and sufficient Hispanic population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-hispanic single member district: 

Harris Ector 
Tarrant Lubbock 
Galveston Fort Bend 
Dallas 

Travis 

13. The above counties contain some 148 judicial 

districts, and a Hispanic population of 15.4%; however, only 4 

or 2.7% of the 148 district judges are Hispanic. 

14. The following judicial districts contain multiple 

counties and sufficient minority population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-minority single member districts: 

  

Judicial District County 

81st, 218th Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, LaSalle 
& Wilson 

36th, 156th, 343rd Aransas, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen 
& San Patricio 

22nd, 207th Caldwell, Comal & Hays 

24th, 135th, 267th Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, 
Refugio & Victoria 

64th, 242nd Castro, Hale & Swisher 

34th, 205th, 210th Culberson, El Paso & Hudspeth 

15. The above counties contain some 15 judicial 

 



  

® c © 

districts, and a combined minority population of 44.32%; 

however, only 1 or 6.7% of the 15 district judges is Black or 

Hispanic. 

16. The following judicial districts contain multiple 

counties and sufficient hispanic population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-hispanic single member district: 

  

Judicial District County 

81st, 218th Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, LaSalle 

& Wilson 

36th, 156th, 343rd Aransas, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen 

& San Patricio = 

24th, 135th, 267th Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, 

Refugio & Victoria 

64th, 242nd Castro, Hale & Swisher 

34th, 205th, 210th Culberson, El Paso & Hudspeth 

17. The above counties contain some 13 judicial 

districts, and a hispanic population of 42.77%; however, only 

1 or 7.7% of the 13 district judges is hispanic. 

18. Upon information and belief, if single members 

districts were drawn in the above named areas, the minority 

group is sufficiently large and compact so that districts could 

be drawn in which minorities would constitute a majority. 

| 19. Upon information and belief, in the above named 

areas minorities are politically cohesive. 

20. Upon information and belief in the above cited 

areas, the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to 

 



® c' 9 

enable it -- in the absence of special circumstances, such as 

the minority candidate running unopposed -- usually to defeat 

the minority's preferred candidate. 

21. Upon information and belief, in the above 

challenged areas, the at large election scheme interacts with 

social and historical conditions to cause an in-equality in the 

opportunity of hispanic or black voters to elect representatives 

of their choice as compared to white voters. 

22. Depending upon the evidence developed in 

discovery, some of the above named areas-may be deleted and some 

unnamed areas may be added. 

VI. Causes of Action 

23. The present at large scheme of electing district 

judges, intentionally created and/or maintained with a discrimi- 

natory purpose, violates the civil rights of plaintiffs by 

diluting their votes. 

24. The present at large scheme of electing district 

judges resuls in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote 

of the plaintiffs on account of their race or color in that the 

political processes leading to nomination or election of 

district judges are not equally open to participation by 

plaintiffs in that they have less opportunity than other members 

of the electorate to elect candidates of their choice.  



VII. Immunities 

25. Qualified and absolute immunity do not protect 

the defendants because plaintiffs seek only injunctive and 

declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. Furthermore, absolute 

immunity does not protect defendants because they do not act in 

any of the capacities which receive immunity at common law. The 

defendants are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity 

because plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief 

and attorneys' fees. 

VIII. Equities 

26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other 

than the judicial relief sought herein, and unless the defen- 

dants are enjoined from continuing the present at large scheme, 

plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by the continuing 

violation of their statutory and constitutional rights. she 

illegal and unconstitutional conditions complained of preclude 

the adoption of remedial provisions by the electorate. The 

present electoral scheme is without any legitimate or compelling 

governmental interest and is arbitrarily and capriciously 

cancels, dilutes and minimizes the force and effect of the 

plaintiffs’ voting strength. 

IX. Attorneys' Fees 

27. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. Sections 1973-1 (e) 

and 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable  



  

® c 

attorneys' fees as part of their costs. 

X. Prayer 

28. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs pray 

that defendants be cited to appear and answer herein; that a 

declaratory judgment be issued finding that the existing method 

of electing district judges is unconstitutional and/or illegal, 

null and void; that the defendants be permanently enjoined from 

calling, holding, supervising or certifying any further 

elections for district judges under the present at large scheme; 

that the Court order that district judges in the targeted 

counties be elected in a system which contains single member 

districts; adjudge all costs against defendants, including 

reasonable attorneys' fees; retain jurisdiction to render any 

and all further orders that this Court may from time to time 

deem appropriate; and grant any and all further relief both at 

law and in equity to which these plaintiffs may show themselves 

to be entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 
& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

(214) 939-9222 

By: SW / Nad 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
  

10 

 



  

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 

Attorney at Law 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument has been served upon counsel of record, by 

placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
  

11 

 



  

  

CHARLE 

By 

  : 5 kK 5 VAGNER, Clerk {+ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Deputy FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 
COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 
$4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 
AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

Nn
 
W
w
»
 W
w 

§ 
JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR.,§ 
and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of 

the State of Texas, JIM 

MATTOX, Attorney General of 
the State of Texas, JACK 
RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 

Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 
of the lst Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th 

§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
Fis 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
S 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

l 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

MO-88-CA-154 

 



Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 

Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 
President, Texas Judicial 
Council, All in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 
of Texas, 

WD
 
W
W
W
 

W
A
L
A
 

WA
 

WD
A 

WD
 

WD
A 

A
W
D
 

WD
 

Defendants. 

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENTION 
  

Came on for consideration, Intervenors/Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Leave to Intervene and after having reviewed the 

pleadings, it is the opinion of this Court that said Motion is 

well taken, and it is therefore 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Intervenors/Plain- 

tiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene is hereby granted and the 

Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to file the Complaint in 

Intervention attached to said Motion as Exhibit "A" in this 

cause of action. 

SIGNED this the day of 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE