Interrogatories, Production of Documents, and Admissions
Public Court Documents
March 28, 1989
62 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Interrogatories, Production of Documents, and Admissions, 1989. 3ade98f1-1d7c-f011-b4cc-6045bdd81421. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5ca403d5-020c-4277-9ec2-bdb5bef32818/interrogatories-production-of-documents-and-admissions. Accessed November 06, 2025.
Copied!
LAW OFFICES OF
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC.
201 NORTH ST. MARY'S ST.. SUITE 600
SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 78205
(512) 222-2478
March 28, 1989
Sherrilyn Ifill
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson, 16th floor
New York, NY 10013
Re: Lulac et al. vs Mattoxs et al.
Dear Ms. Ifill:
Enclosed you will find the Interrogatories, Production of
Documents, and Admissions, which Susan asked me to mail to
you.
ay Seam
Ja uentello
Secretary
. ~
>’ i X Need »
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
MO-88-CA-154
VS.
JIM MATTOX, et al.,
¢ Defendants.
CO
%
O
°
LO
N
CO
B
LO
B
CO
P
LO
R
»
DEFENDANTS' REPLIES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (AMENDED)*
Pursuant to the Court's Order Concerning Admissions, filed on March
6, 1989, the state defendants reply and object as follows:
REQUEST NO, 11
Candidates for district court in the State of Texas run in party
primaries.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 11
(For purposes of this reply and all further replies and objections, the
state defendants will assume that the term "district court”, as well as its
plural form, is used in the sense described in the second sentence of Reply
to Request No. 2 in Defendants’ Replies and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First
Request for Admissions. Because the set of admission requests to which
the state defendants now are responding really are a continuation of the
previous set, shorthand references to the replies and objections to the
earlier set of admission requests will periodically be made.) The state
* The state defendants are responding to the admissions contained in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ First Motion Concerning Admissions, which are the ones to which the plaintiffs have indicated they want responscs mailed by March 14, 1989.
® “r 4 1 Se »
defendants admit that district court candidates may run in party
primaries.
REQUEST NO. 12
If no candidate receives the majority of votes in a party primary, the
top two candidates compete in a run-off election.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 12 |
: Admit.
, REQUESTNO., 13
The candidates who win in the party primaries compete in the
general election.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 13
Admit.
REQUEST NO. 14
Each judicial district in Texas contains one or more complete counties.
In other words, no judicial district is smaller in size than an entire county.
[See Texas Government Code Section 24.945(¢)].
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 14
The state defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in
the first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply
to Request No. 3. The state defendants do admit that it appears to be an
accurate description of the law.
REQUEST NO. 15
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Harris County:
11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th, 127th, 129th, 133rd,
151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, 165th, 174th, 176th, 177th, 178th,
179th, 180th, 182nd, 183rd, 184th, 185th, 190th, 208th, 209th,
i TN
® ~~ Fi Y ried ®
215th, 228th, 230th, 232nd, 234th, 245th, 246th, 247th, 248th,
257th, 262nd, 263rd, 269th, 270th, 280th, 281st, 295th, 308th,
309th, 310th, 311th, 312th, 313th, 314th, 315th, 333rd, 334th
337th, 338th, 339th, 351st.
J
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 15
The state defendants admit that the listed districts are the ones lying
within Harris County, but are uncertain from the pleadings whether all of
them are challenged. Therefore, they deny the remainder of the request.
> REQUESTNO. 16
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Dallas County:
14th, 44th, 68th, 95th, 101st, 116th, 134th, 160th, 162nd,
191st, 192nd, 193rd, 194th, 195th, 203rd, 204th, 254th, 255th,
256th, 265th, 282nd, 283rd, 291st, 292nd, 298th, 301st,
302nd, 303rd, 304th, 305th, 330th; Criminal District 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
REQUEST NO, 17
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Ector County:
70th, 161st, 244th, 358th.
REQUEST NO, 18
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in McLennan County:
19th, 54th, 74th, 170th.
REQUEST NO. 19
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Tarrant County:
® he ad 4 1 bis ®
17th, 48th, 67th, 96th, 141st, 153rd, 213th, 231st, 233:d,
236th, 297th, 322nd, 323rd, 324th, 325th, 342nd, 348th,
352nd, 360th; Criminal District 1, 2,-3, 4,
REQUEST NO. 20
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Midland County: |
142nd, 238th, 318th.
* REQUEST NO. 21
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Travis County:
53rd, 98th, 126th, 147th, 167th, 200th, 201st, 250th, 261st,
299th, 331st, 345th, 353rd.
REQUEST NO. 22
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Jefferson County:
58th, 60th, 136th, 172nd, 252nd, 279th, 317th; Criminal
District.
REQUEST NO. 23
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Galveston County:
10th, 56th, 122nd, 212th, 306th.
REQUEST NO. 24
This. lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Lubbock County:
72nd, 99th, 137th, 140th, 237th.
pe Sof I | ety »®
REQUEST NO. 25
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Fort Bend County:
240th, 268th, 328th.
REQUEST NO. 26
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Smith County:
7th, 114th, 241st, 321st.
REPLIES TO REQUEST NOS. 16-26
y
With respect to each county listed in the enumerated requests, the
state defendants respond as they do in their Reply to Request No. 15 with
respect to Harris County.
REQUEST NO. 27
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Brazos County:
85th, 272nd, 361st.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 27
The state defendants deny this request based on telephone
conversations and correspondence with the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
REQUEST NO. 28
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Brazoria County:
23rd, 149th, 239th, 300th.
REQUEST NO. 29
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for district
courts in Taylor County:
42nd, 104th, 326th, 350th.
REQUEST NO. 30
This lawsuit challenges the following
courts in Wichita County:
30th, 78th, 89th.
REQUEST NO. 31
This lawsuit challenges the following
courts in Angelina County:
159th, 217th.
REQUEST NO. 32
This lawsuit challenges the following
courts in Gregg County:
124th, 188th, 307th.
REQUEST NO. 33
This lawsuit challenges the following
courts in Bell County
27th, 146th, 169th, 264th.
REQUEST NO. 34
This lawsuit challenges the following
courts in multi-county districts:
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
districts
districts
districts
districts
districts
for
for
for
for
for
district
district
district
district
district
81st, 218th, 36th, 156th, 343rd, 22nd, 207th, 24th, 135th, 267th, 64th, 242nd, 34th, 205th, 210th.
REPLY TO REQUEST NOS. 28-34
Deny for the reason stated in Reply to Request No. 27.
® Sw! 1 ? “er »
REQUEST NO. 35
Each district court in Texas has equivalent jurisdiction even if it is
directed to give preference to specific matters or types of cases [Texas
Government Code Section 24.309]. |
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 35
The state defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in
the first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply
to Request No. 3. It appears to be a relatively accurate statement of the
law as stated in a specific part of the Texas statutes -- that is, part of the
Texas Government Code; however, further legal research, including a
search of local rules of practice, would be necessary to conclusively answer
this request.
REQUEST NO. 36
Texas does not have a single member district system for the election
of district court judges.
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 36
The state defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in
the first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply
to Request No. 3. The configuration of judicial districts in most, if not all,
counties in Texas, suggests that this statement is a relatively accurate
recitation of the law.
REQUEST NO. 37
There is a history of discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity
throughout the State of Texas LULAC v. Midland ISD, 648 F. Supp. 596,
600, 613-21 (W. D. Tex. 1986), aff'd in relevant part, 829 F.2d 546 (5th Cir.
1987); Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Testimony of G. Korbel,
C. Cotrell. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of
£7.
p ihe t ! fi »
the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (94th Congress 1st
Session) on S. 407, S. 903, S. 1279, S. 1409 and S. 1443 (April 8, 9, 10, 22,
29, 30 and May 1, 1979).
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 37
Because of, among other things, the uncertain meanings of "history"
(including how far back and forward it reaches), of "discrimination"
(including the critical distinction between intention and effect), and of
"throughout," the state defendants deny this request.
REQUEST NO. 38
Since 1976, the State of Texas has been covered by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires preclearance of changes of
election systems by the Department of Justice or the United States District
Court of the District of Columbia,
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 38
The state defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in
the first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply
to Request No. 3. The statement does appear to be a relatively accurate
characterization of the law.
REQUEST NO. 39
In Texas, no law school accepted any black students until the late
1940's when Texas University for Negroes opened a segregated facility.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 39
The period available to determine the accuracy of the request's
assertion was too short to permit the - extensive and careful research into
the facts that a factual matter such as this one deserves. For instance, it is
unclear how far back in time the request is intended to reach. Preliminary
and, at this point anyway, incomplete inquiries Suggest that the request
“8
% Sar’ ‘> J er »
accurately reflects the facts. It simply cannot be said definitively at this
point that it does.
REQUEST NO. 40
Texas had no integrated law school that blacks and whites could
attend together until 1950.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 40
, The state defendants reply to this request is the same as their reply
to Request No. 39.
REQUEST NO. 41
Texas did not have an integrated law school that blacks and whites
could attend together until the United States Supreme Court the State to do
so. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950).
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 41
The apparent omission of a word from this request makes it
impossible to reply. Based only on a guess as to the omitted word, the
state defendants anticipate that their reply would be the same as the
Reply to Request No. 39.
REQUEST NO. 42
Throughout Texas, social stratification based on race and ethnicity
exists.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 42
Because of, among other things, the uncertain meanings of
“[t]hroughout” and of "social stratification" (including its degree), the state
defendants deny this ‘request,
REQUEST NO. 43
In Texas, blacks and hispanics are minority groups.
: : 7 » ® i $e : iy
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 43
The state defendants admit that in Texas blacks ‘and hispanics are
minority groups within the meaning of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,
as amended; however, blacks or hispanics or both combined sometimes
constitute the majority within some relevant jurisdictions in Texas.
REQUEST NO. 44
, According to the 1980 census, the population of Texas is 14,229,191.
There are 1,704,741 blacks and 2,982,583 persons of Spanish origin.
[1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 56 at 45-11, 58 at 45-
31, 59 at 45-59].
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 44
The state defendants admit that the numbers stated in the request
accurately reflect the numbers in the 1980 Census.
REQUEST NO. 45
According to the 1980 census, there is education disparity based
upon race and ethnicity in Texas.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 45
Because of the uncertain ‘meaning of "education disparity" and
because the 1980 census makes no single, specific statement about the
matter covered by this request, the state defendants deny it.
REQUEST NO 46
In Texas, although 65.7% of adult! white complete high school, only
53.0% of adult blacks and 35.5% of adult hispanics complete high school.
[1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 76 at 45-126 and 86
at 45-143].
Adult is defined as twenty five years and older.
-10-
'
\, / ® p 4 i ! i
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 46
The state defendants admit that the numbers stated in the request
accurately reflect the numbers stated in the 1980 census. Because of the
uncertain meaning and implication of the words "although" and "only," the
state defendants deny the remainder of the request.
REQUEST NO. 47
, In Texas, adult whites complete a median of 12.5 years of school but
adult blacks and hispanics complete a median of only 12.1 and 8.8 years of
school, respectively. [1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables
76 at 45-126 and 86 at 45-143].
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 47
The state defendants admit that the numbers stated in the request
accurately reflect the numbers stated in the 1980 census. Because of the
uncertain meaning and implication of the words "but" and "only," the state
defendants deny the remainder of the request.
REQUEST NO. 48
There is disparity in income in Texas based upon race and ethnicity.
- REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 48
Because of, among other things, uncertainty about the meaning of the
phrase "based upon race and ethnicity[]," the state defendants deny this
request.
REQUEST NO. 49
According to the 1980 census,2 the mean and median incomes for
families in Texas are:
The 1980 census uses income figures gathered in 1979
-1Y-
® Nort . 1 Nr ; »
White Black ~~ Spanish Origin
Median $20,955 $13,042 $4,631
Mean $24,782 $15,573 $6,531
[1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 81 at 45-136 and 91
at 54-148]
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 49
_ Deny.
REQUEST NO. 50
According to the 1980 Census, in Texas? 8.4% of white families have
incomes that fall below the poverty guidelines. In contrast, 24.2% of black
families and 24.7% of Spanish origin families have incomes that fall below
the poverty guidelines. [1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1
Tables 82 at 45-138 and 104 at 45-161].
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 50
The state defendants admit that the numbers stated in the request
accurately reflect the numbers stated in the 1980 census.
REQUEST NO. 51
In Texas, black and Spanish origin indigent families have incomes
that fall further below the poverty guidelines than do white indigent
families. The mean income income deficit for white indigent families is
$3,191.00 but for black and Spanish origin indigent families it is $3,264.00
and $3,705.00 respectively. [1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1
Tables 82 at 45-138 and 104 at 45-161].
The 1980 census uses income figures gathered in 1979.
112.
5 ® ® Nap ,-. y Ne?
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 51
The state defendants choose not to guess at the intended meaning of
the first sentence of the request, and, because of its ambiguity, cannot
either admit or deny it in its current form. The state defendants deny the
second sentence of the request.
Dated: March 14, 1989
Respectfully submitted,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARY F. KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General
A HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General
JAVIER GUAJARDO
Assistant Attorney General
'P. O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2085
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
13+
~~
® rare” 4 1 ¥
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
MO 88 CA 154
VS.
WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al.,
Defendants. CO
B
CO
P
LO
N
LO
R
LO
N
LO
N
LO
»
DEFENDANTS' REPLIES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
The Defendants reply and object as follows to Plaintiffs’ First
Request for Admissions, served on December 15, 1988:
REQUEST NO. 1:
Venue is proper in federal court in the Western District of Texas,
Midland/Odessa division.
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 1:
The defendants admit that the facts of this case make venue
proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, but, even though they have not challenged it, the defendants
deny that the facts of this case make venue proper in the Midland-
Odessa Division of that district. None of the defendants resides in any of
the counties listed in 28 U.S.C. §124(d)(7). Therefore, among other
things, under 28 U.S.C. §1393(b), venue is improper in that division.
The different, but related, issue of forum non conveniens is not
addressed in this reply because the request is not construed to cover it.
\ . \
Ril
[} i
REQUEST NO. 2:
Texas has 375 district courts. [Texas Judicial System Annual
Report (1987) at 10].
REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 2:
Although this request actually inquires into a legal matter set
forth in Texas statutes creating the district courts, the defendants will
reply to it. If the term "district courts" as used in the request is
intended to cover state district courts, state criminal district courts, and
state family district courts, and nothing else, the defendants admit it.
(For purposes of all further replies and objections set forth below, the
defendants will assume that the term "district courts" is ‘intended to
cover the list set forth in the preceding sentence.) If the term covers
something else, the defendants deny it.
REQUEST NO. 3:
District courts are trials courts of general subject-matter
jurisdiction. [Texas Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909,
1913, 1914].
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 3:
The defendants object to this request because it inquires into a
matter that is purely a question of law, determinable by reference to
applicable Texas statutes, as well as any court decisions and Attorney
General opinions interpreting them. Therefore, it is outside the
permissible area of inquiry under Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Williams v. Krieger, 61 F.R.D. 142, 144 (S.D.N.Y.
1973). The defendants do admit that the sentence is a generally
accurate description of district court jurisdiction as set forth in the law.
23.
s
% ’
ed ® —— p f
REQUEST NO. 4:
Candidates for the position of district judge must be elected by a
majority of votes cast in the relevant election.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 4;
The defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in the
first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply to
Request No. 3.
REQUEST NO. 5:
Candidates for the position of district judge must file to run for a
particular numbered district court. This is the equivalent of a
numbered post system.
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 5:
The defendants object to the first sentence of this request for the
reasons stated in the first two sentences (along with citations) of their
Objection and Reply to Request No. 3. The defendants further object to
this request as a whole because it constitutes an impermissible
compound inquiry. Nonetheless, as to the second sentence of the
request, the defendants reply as follows. In counties in Texas
containing more than one judicial district, a candidate for district judge
must designate the judicial district for which he or she seeks
nomination or election. The vagueness of the second sentence makes it
difficult to formulate a reply, but the situation described in the
preceding sentence appears to be similar to what parts of the legislative
history of the Voting Rights Act term a "numbered post system."
REQUEST NO. 6:
A numbered post system often highlights or exacerbates the issue
of a candidate's race or ethnicity.
ol 4 r No tl 1
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 6:
The defendants object to this request because it is too vague and
global. They cannot determine if it refers to Texas at all or even
partially and, if it does, whether if refers to judicial elections in Texas.
The use of the indefinite term "often" further compounds the vagueness
of the request which makes it impossible to answer. The defendants do
admit that the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act contains this
assertion.
REQUEST NO. 7:
All district court judges are elected at-large from the judicial
district in which they run.
OBJECTION AND REPLY TO REQUEST NO. 7:
The defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in the
first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply to
Request No. 3. The defendants do admit that district court judges are
elected at large in Texas counties which contain more than one judicial
district. Because of their uncertainty about whether the term "at-large"
is meant to cover it, the defendants cannot address the situation where
a county or multi-county area contains only one judicial district.
REQUEST NO. 8:
In Texas, each district judge must be a citizen of the United States
- and of Texas, licensed to practice law in Texas, and have been a
practicing lawyer or judge of a court in Texas, or both combined, for
four years preceding the election. [Texas Constitution Article 5, Section
71.
\ \ /
yt »
all
i i
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 8:
The defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in the
first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply to
Request No. 3.
REQUEST NO. 9:
Each district judge in Texas must reside in the district in which he
was elected for two years preceding his election and must reside in his
district during his term of office. [Texas Constitution Article 5, Section
7].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 9:
The defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in the
first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply to
Request No. 3. |
REQUEST NO. 10:
District court judges in the State of Texas serve four year terms.
[Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 71.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 10:
The defendants object to this request for the reasons stated in the
first two sentences (along with citations) of their Objection and Reply to
Request No. 3.
REQUEST NO. 11:
Candidates for district court in the State of Texas run in party
primaries. If no candidate receives the majority of votes, the top two
candidates compete in a run-off election. Then, candidates compete in
the general election.
® \
Ne Meret” t
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 11:
The defendants object to this request. Rule 300-6(f) of the Local
Rules of the Western District of Texas limits the plaintiffs to ten
requests for admissions unless they have obtained leave of court to
exceed that number. The plaintiffs have not done so. Having replied to
the first ten requests, the defendants need answer no more at this time
under the local rules.
REQUEST NO. 12:
Although the governor has authority to appoint an attorney to the
Judicial Districts Board, he has yet to do so. [Texas Judicial System
Annual Report (1987) at 69].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 12:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 13:
Each judicial district in Texas contains one or more complete
counties. In other words, no judicial district is smaller in size than an
entire county. [See Texas Government Code Section 24.945(c)].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO, 13:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 14:
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts ‘for district
courts:
Harris County 11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th, 127th, 129th,
133rd, 151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, 165th, 174th, 176th, 177th,
178th, 179th, 180th, 182nd, 183rd, 184th, 185th, 189th, 190th,
Vy
ho /
Sar” »
ip
’ :
208th, 209th, 215th, 228th, 230th, 232nd, 234th, 245th, 246th.
247th, 248th, 257th, 262nd, 263rd, 269th, 270th, 280th, 281st.
295th, 308th, 309th, 310th, 311th, 312th, 313th, 314th, 315th,
333rd, 334th, 337th, 338th, 339th, 351st.
Dallas County 14th, 44th, 68th, 95th, 101st, 116th, 134th, 160th,
162nd, 191st, 192nd, 193rd, 194th, 195th, 203rd, 204th, 254th,
255th, 256th, 265th, 282nd, 283rd, 291st, 292nd, 298th, 301st,
302nd, 303rd, 304th, 305th, 330th; Criminal District 1,2;:3,.4, 5.
Ector County 70th, 161st, 244th, 358th.
McLennan County 19th, 54th, 74th, 170th.
Tarrant County 17th, 48th, 67th, 96th, 141st, 153rd, 213th, 231st,
233rd, 236th, 297th, 322nd, 323rd, 324th, 325th, 342nd, 348th,
352nd, 360th; Criminal District 1, 2.3, 4,
Midland County 142nd, 238th, 318th.
Travis County 53rd, 98th, 126th, 147th, 167th, 200th, 201st,
250th, 261st, 299th, 331st, 345th, 353rd.
Jefferson County, 58th, 60th, 136th, 172nd, 252nd, 279th, 317ih:
Criminal District.
Galveston County 10th, 56th, 122nd, 212th, 306th.
he
»
\ « ' pa pA ——
Lubbock County 72nd, 99th, 137th, 140th, 237th.
Fort Bend County 240th, 268th, 328th.
Smith County 7th, 114th, 241st, 321st.
Brazos County 85th, 272nd, 361st.
Brazoria County 23rd, 149th, 239th, 300th.
Taylor County 42nd, 104th, 326th, 350th.
Wichita County 30th, 78th, 89th.
Angelina County 159th, 217th.
Gregg County 124th, 188th, 307th.
Bell County 27th, 146th, 169th, 264th.
and also
81st, 218th, 36th, 156th, 343rd, 22nd, 207th, 24th, 135th, 267th,
64th, 242nd, 34th, 205th, 210th.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 14:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
-3-
J
Boor : ® ® er r :
REQUEST NO. 15:
Each district court in Texas has equivalent jurisdiction even if it is
directed to give preference to specific matters or types of cases. [Texas
Government Code Section 24.309].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 15:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 16;
Texas does not have a single member district system for the
election of district court judges.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 16:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 17:
There is a history of discrimination on the basis of race and
ethnicity throughout the State of Texas. LULAC v. Midland ISD, 648 F.
Supp. 596, 600, 613-21 (W. D. Tex. 1986), affd in relevant part, 829
F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1987); Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Testimony of G. Korbel, C. Cotrell. Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate (94th Congress 1st Session) on S. 407, S. 903, 8. 1279, S. 1409
and S. 1443 (April 8, 9, 10, 22, 29, 30 and May 1, 1979).
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 17;
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 18:
Since 1976, the State of Texas has been covered by Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires preclearance of changes
of election Systems by the Department of Justice or the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
-O.
® Neri” . : {i »
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 18:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 19:
In Texas, no law school accepted any black students until the late
1940's when Texas University for Negros opened a segregated facility.
The State had no integrated law school that blacks and whites could
attend together until 1950, when required to do so by the United States
Supreme Court. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950).
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 19:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 20:
Throughout Texas, social stratification based on race and ethnicity
exists.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 20:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 21:
In Texas, blacks and hispanics are minority groups. According to
the 1980 census, the population of Texas is 14,229,191. There are
1,704,741 blacks and 2,982,583 persons of Spanish origin. [1980
Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 56 at 45-11, 58 at 45-31,
59 at 45-59].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 21:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
210
% ; : :
REQUEST NO. 22:
According to the 1980 census, there is educational disparity based
upon race and ethnicity in Texas. Although 65.7% of adult! whites
complete high school, only 53.0% of adult blacks and 35.5% of adult
hispanics complete high school. Similarly, statewide, adult whites
complete a median of 12.5 years of school but adult blacks and
hispanics complete a median of only 12.1 and 8.8 years of school,
respectively. [1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 76 at
45-126 and 86 at 45-143].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 22:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
REQUEST NO. 23:
There is a disparity in income in Texas based upon race and
ethnicity, According to the 1980 census,2 the mean and median
incomes for families in Texas are:
White Black Spanish Origin
Median $20,955 $13,042 $4,631
Mean $24,782 $15,573 $6,531
[1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 81 at 45-136 and
91 at 45-148)
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 23:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
Adult is defined as twenty five years and olders.
The 1980 census uses income figures gathered in 1979.
-11-
p >
hence »
REQUEST NO. 24:
According to the 1980 Census, in Texas! 8.4% of white families
have incomes that fall below the poverty guidelines. In contrast, 24.2%
of black families and 24.7% of Spanish origin families have incomes that
fall below the poverty guidelines. In addition, black and Spanish origin
indigent families have incomes that fall further below the poverty
guidelines than do white indigent families. The mean income deficit for
white indigent families is $3,191.00 but for black and Spanish origin
indigent families it is $3,264.00 and $3,705.00 respectively. [1980
Census of Population-Texas Section 1 Tables 82 at 45-138 and 104 at
45-161].
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 24:
(Same as Objection to Request No. 11)
Dated: January 17, 1989
The 1980 census uses income figures gathered in 1979.
-12%
% : 2 » 3 = »
Respectfully submitted,
JIM MATTOX :
Attorney General of Texas
MARY F. KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General
se fee
Special Assistant Attorney General
JAVIER GUAJARDO
Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2085
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS - — —
ge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC Council No. 4434, et al.s§
Plaintiffs,
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MO-88-~CA-154 WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al.
- Defendants.
L
o
u
w
»
TO: Defendants WILLIAM CLEMENTS, JIM MATTOX, JACK RAINS, THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, JOHN F. ONION, JR., RON CHAPMAN, THOMAS J. STOVALL, JR., JAMES F. CLAWSON, JR., JOE E. KELLY, JOE B. EVINS, SAM B. PAXSON, WELDON KIRK, CHARLES J. MURRAY, RAY D. ANDERSON and JOE SPURLOCK, in care of Renea Hicks, Special Assistant Attorney General, Pp. O. Box 12548, Captiol Station, Austin, TX 78711-2548.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS
1. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, pursuant to Rules
26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, request
the Defendants, or any officer, agent or employee of
Defendants who has such information as is available, to admit
Or deny in writing and under oath, each and every one of the
following requests for admission within thirty (30) days
after service. These requests for admission are continuing
to the extent required by Rule 26(e), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2. Unless otherwise stated, the terms "identify,"
"identity" or "identification" mean when used in reference
to:
— “« 2 H ~
A natural person, his or her:
1. full name;
2 Present or last known home and business
address, including street name and number,
city or town and state;
3. Present or last known home and business
telephone number; and
4, present or last known Position, job title and
job description.
A company, corporation, association, partnership,
joint venture, or any legal entity other than a
natural person, its:
1. full name and type of organization or entity;
2 address of Principal place of business; and
3. business telephone number.
A document, its:
1. date and title;
2. author;
3. addressee;
4. a precise description of the contents thereof;
and
5e the identity of the Person having possession
of the document.
An election, the:
1. date;
i ne’ : Sow! »
2. type of election, specifically state, county,
city, primary election, general election, or
referendum;
3. identity of the Person having possession of
the official returns by precinct.
3. The terms, "document" or "documents" mean all
writing of any kind (including the originals and all non-
identical copies, whether different from the original by
reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise),
regardless of their origin or location, including without
limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries,
statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports,
studies, applications and Proposals for federal and state
financial assistance, checks, statements, receipts, returns,
summaries, pamphlets, books, charts, maps, interoffice and
intraoffice communications, notations of any sort of
conversations, bulletins, Printed matter, computer printouts,
teletypes, telefax, worksheets and drafts, alterations,
modifications, changes, and amendments of RY of the
foregoing, graphic or aural records or representations of any
kind (including without limitation, Photographs, charts,
graphs, microfiche, videotapes, recordings, motion pictures)
and electronic, mechanical or electric records or
representations of any kind (including without limitation,
tapes, cassettes, mag cards, disks, and recordings).
4. The term "all documents" means every document as
i - Me Ss
'
above defined known to you and every such document which can
be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts.
5 If a request is made for the identification of
documents which are no longer in your Possession or subject
to your control, state when and what disposition was made of
them.
6. The term "person" means any natural person,
corporation, partnership, Proprietorship, association,
organization or group of natural persons.
7. he “terms "you" or "your" mean the Defendants and
all other persons acting or purporting to act on their
behalf.
8. The term "City" refers to the Defendant, the City
of Cuero.
9. The term "combined minority" means the black and
hispanic population.
10. The term "polarized voting" has the meaning given
to it by the United States Supreme Court in Thornbird v.
Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986) .
11. The term "ED" means Census Enumeration District.
12. If a request is made for the identification of
documents which are no longer in your Possession or subject
to your control, state when and what disposition was made of
them.
13. For each request for admission which you refuse to
answer on the grounds of Privilege (the tern "privilege"
pA og?” . x Nov a
includes work product) :
a. state the nature of the Privilege and the
basis upon which the claim of Privilege is
made; and
b. in addition, if the claim of Privilege is
asserted with regard to a document, a precise
description of the contents of the documents.
ADMISSION NO. 1
Venue is proper in federal court in the Western District of
Texas, Midland/Odessa division.
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 2
Texas has 375 district courts. [Texas Judicial System Annual
Report (1987) at 10].
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 3
District courts are trials courts of general subject-matter
jurisdiction. [Texas Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1906, 1907,
1908, 1909, 1913, 1914].
— ADMIT it pENY
ADMISSION NO. 4
Candidates for the position of district judge must be elected
by a majority of votes cast in the relevant election.
ADMIT DENY
pai vd P s Swed ®
t
ADMISSION NO. 5
Candidates for the position of district judge must file to
run for a particular numbered district court. This is the
equivalent of a numbered post system.
— ADMIT LL Li DENY
ADMISSION NO. 6
A numbered post system often highlights or exacerbates the
issue of a candidate's race or ethnicity.
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 7
All district court judges are elected at- large from the
judicial district in which they run.
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 8
In Texas, each district judge must be a citizen of the United
States and of Texas, licensed to practice law in Texas, and
have been a practicing lawyer or judge of a court in Texas,
or both combined, for four Years preceding the election.
[Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 7).
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 9
Each district judge in Texas must reside in the ‘district in
which he was elected for two years preceding his election and
must reside in his district during his term of office.
[Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 7),
ADMIT DENY
” » Y @ rp iad he
)
ADMISSION NO. 10
District court judges in the State of Texas serve four year
terms. [Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 7]
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 11
Candidates for district court in the State of Texas run in
party primaries. If no candidate receives the majority of
votes, the top two candidates compete in a run-off election.
Then, candidates compete in the general election.
LL ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 12
Although the governor has authority to appoint an attorney to
the Judicial Districts Board, he has yet to do so. [Texas
Judicial System Annual Report (1987) at 69].
2 ADMIT oo - DENY
ADMISSION NO. 13.
Each judicial district in Texas contains one or more complete
counties. In other words, no judicial district is smaller in
size than an entire county. [See Texas Government Code
Section 24.945(c)].
_ ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 14:
This lawsuit challenges the following judicial districts for
district courts:
Harris County 11th, 55th, 61st, 80th, 113th, 125th,
127th, 129th, 133rd, 151st, 152nd, 157th, 164th, 165th,
174th, 176th, 177th, 178th, 179th, 180th, 182nd, 183rd,
184th, 185th, 189th, 190th, 208th, 209th, 215th, 228th,
7
230th, 232nd, 234th, 245th, 246th, 247th, 248th, 262nd, 263rd, 269th, 270th, 280th, 281st, 295th, 309th, 310th, 311th, 312th, 313th, 314th, 315th, 334th, 337th, 338th, 339th, 351st.
Dallas County 14th, 44th, 68th, 95th, 101st, 134th, 160th, 162nd, 191st, 192nd, 193rq4, 194th, 203rd, 204th, 254th, 255th, 256th, 265th, 282nd, 291st, 292nd, 298th, 301st, 302nd, 303rd, 304th, 330th; Criminal District 1, 2¢r.3, 4, 5,
Ector County 70th, 161st, 244th, 358th.
McLennan County 19th, 54th, 74th, 170th.
Tarrant County 17th, 48th, 67th, 96th, 141st, 153rd, 213th, 231st, 233rd, 236th, 297th, 322nd, 323rd, 324th, 325th, 342nd, 348th, 352nd,- 360th; Criminal District 1, 2:3, 4.
Midland County 142nd, 238th, 318th.
Travis County 53rd, 98th, 126th, 147th, 167th, 200th, 201st, 250th, 261st, 299th, 331st, 345th, 353rq.
Jefferson County 58th, 60th, 136th, 172nd, 252n4, 279th,
317th; Criminal District
Galveston County 10th, 56th, 122nd, 212th, 306th
Lubbock County 72nd, 99th, 137th, 140th, 237th
Fort Bend County 240th, 268th, 328th
Smith County 7th, 114th, 241st, 321st
Brazos County 85th, 272nd 36lst.
Brazoria County 23rd, 149th, 239th, 300th.
Taylor County 42nd, 104th, 326th, 350th
Wichita County 30th, 78th, 89th.
Angelina County 159th, 217th.
Gregg County 124th, 188th, 307th.
Bell County 27th, 146th, 169th, 264th.
and also
%
" y
|
81st, 218th, 36th, 156th, 343rd, 22n4, 207th, 24th, 135th, 267th, 64th, 242n4, 34th, 205th, 210th.
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 15
types of cases. [Texas Government Code Section 24.309].
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 16
Texas does not have a single member district system for the
election of district court judges.
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 17
There is ga history of discrimination on the basis of race and
ethnicity throughout the State of Texas. LULAC v. Midland
ISD, 648 F. Supp. 596, 600, 613-21 (w. Dp. Tex. 1986), aff'g
in relevant part, 829 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1987); Extension of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Testimony of G. Korbel, c.
Cotrell. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Consitutional
Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate (94th Congress 1st Session)on §. 407, S. 903, s. 1279,
S. 1409 and s. 1443 (April 8, 9,110,232, 29, 30 and May 1,
1979). |
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 18
Since 1976, the State of Texas has been covered by Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires preclearance
9
Columbia.
ADMIT
DENY
ADMISSION NO. 19
In Texas, no law school accepted any black students until the
segregated facility. ‘The State had no integrated law school that blacks ang whites could attend together until 1950, when required to do so by the United States Supreme Court. Sweatt
V. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950).
ADMIT
DENY
ADMISSION NO. 20
Throughout Texas, social stratification based on race and
ethnicity exists.
ADMIT
DENY
ADMISSION NO. 21
In Texas, blacks and hispanics are minority groups.
According to the 1980 census, the Population of Texas is
14,229,191, There are 1,704,741 blacks and 2,982,583 persons
of Spanish origin. [1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables. 5g at 45-11, 58 at 45-31, 59 at 45-59],
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 22
According to the 1980 census, there is educational disparity
based upon race and ethnicity in Texas. Although 65.7% of
10
t Se’ ~ ’ hated
adultl whites complete high school, only 53.0% of adult
blacks and 35.5% of adult hispanics complete high school.
Similarly, statewide, adult whites complete a median of 12.5
126 and 86 at 45-143].
ADMIT : DENY
ADMISSION NO. 23
There is disparity in income in Texas based upon race and
ethnicity. According to the 1980 census, ?2 the mean ang
median incomes for families in Texas are:
White Black Spanish Origin
Median $20,955 $13,042 $4,631
Mean $24,782 $15,573 $6,531
[1980 Census of Population - Texas Section 1 Tables 81 at 45-
136 and 91 at 45-148]
ADMIT DENY
ADMISSION NO. 24
According to the 1980 Census, in Texas3 8.43% of white
families have incomes that fall below the poverty guidelines.
In contrast, 24.2% of black families and 24.7% of Spanish
3The 1980 census uses income figures gathered in 1979,
11
jb, TO
x} ® = : g
origin families have incomes that fall below the poverty guidelines. In addition, black and Spanish origin indigent
ADMIT
DENY
CE ——
Dated: December 15, 1988
Respectfully submitted:
ROLANDO RIOS
Attorney at Law
Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, Inc. 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 San Antonio, Texas 78205 State Bar No. 16935900 (512) 222-2102
WILLIAM C. GARRETT
BRENDA HULL THOMPSON
Garrett, Thompson & Chang Attorneys at Law
8300 Douglas, suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225
State Bar No. 07700000 (214) 369-1952
12
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
Attorney at Law
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 78205 State Bar No. 07015500 (512) 222-2478
ee Fh bation
/ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, a true and correct Copy of this Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions to Renea Hicks, Special Assistant Attorney General, P. 0. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711-2548 on December 15, 1988,
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
8 : | # rE iy —t
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS. Civil Action No.
MO 88 CA 154
WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al.,
Defendants. CO
?
CO
P
CO
P
LO
O
CO
%
LO
H
LO
»
DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES :
The defendants in this action answer as follows to Plaintiffs’
First Set of Interrogatories, served on August 8, 1988:
Answer to Interrocatory No. 1
Except for information about the race/ethnicity of the judges,
which is -unavailable, pursuant to Rule 33(c), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the defendants designate the records themselves. These
records may be reviewed during regular business hours at the
Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State, which is located on
the 9th Rloor Sam Houston State Office Building, Austin, Texas. (For
brevity, the rest of these answers, as well as the Responses to
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents and Things, will
refer to these offices as the "Secretary of State's offices.")
Answer to Interrooatory No. 2
This information is available at the Secretary of State's offices.
Answer _to_Interrooatory No. 3
See §2.001 of the Texas Election Code for the response to this
legal question.
oo _ . @
Answer to Interrogatorv No. 4
None exists at this time.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 5
This question really cannot be answered. First, there is
uncertainty at this point about what is relevant to this case. Second,
because the case touches on such broad political and social questions,
the number of people with potentially relevant information is
virtually limitless.
Answer to _Interrogatorv No. 6
James A. Hensarling, an attorney with the Elections Division of
the Office of the Secretary of State, along with several other
members of the Elections Division staff, assisted in the preparation of
these answers and the responses to the document production
request. Mr. Hensarling's address is P. O. Box 12060, Austin, Texas
78711, and his telephone number is (512) 463-5650.
~ -_ -—— \ Tmt
Renea Hicks
Special Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2085
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC Council No. 4434, et al.s§
Plaintiffs, §
§
VS.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§ MO-88~-CA-154
WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al. §
Defendants. §
TO: Defendants WILLIAM CLEMENTS, JIM MATTOX, JACK RAINS, THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, JOHN F. ONION, JR., RON CHAPMAN, THOMAS J. STOVALL, JR., JAMES F. CLAWSON, JR., JOE E. KELLY, JOE B. EVINS, SAM B. PAXSON, WELDON KIRK, CHARLES J. MURRAY, RAY D. ANDERSON and JOE SPURLOCK, each at his correct address.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, pursuant to Rules 33 and
36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, request the
Defendants, or any officer, agent or: employee of Defendants
who has such information as is available, to answer in
writing and under oath, each and every one of the following
interrogatories within forty five (45) days after service.
These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing to the
extent required by Rule 26 (e), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
As used herein, widentifry,” "identity" or
"identification" means when used in reference to:
[
.
\ i
A. A natural person, his or her:
1. full name;
2. present or last known home and business
address, including street name and number,
city or town and state;
3. telephone number; and
4. present or last known position, job title and
job description.
B. A company, corporation, association, partnership,
joint venture, or any legal entity other than a
natural person, its:
1x full name and type of organization or entity;
2. address of principal place of business; and
3. telephone number.
Cs A document, its:
1. date and title;
2 author;
3. addressee;
4. a precise description of its contents; and
5a. the identity of the person having possession
of the document.
D. An election, the:
1. date;
2. type of election, specifically state, county,
city, primary election, general election, or
referendum; and
3 identity of the person having possession of
the official returns by precinct.
As used in these interrogatories, "document" or
"documents" means all writing of any kind (including the
originals and all non-identical copies, whether different
from the original by reason of any notation made on such
copies or otherwise), regardless of their origin or location,
including without limitation, correspondence, memoranda,
notes, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes,
contracts, reports, studies, applications and proposals for
federal and state financial assistance, checks, statements,
receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, charts, maps,
interoffice and intraoffice communications, notations of any
sort of conversations, bulletins, printed matter, computer
Printouts, teletypes, telefax, worksheets and drafts,
alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of
the foregoing, graphic or aural records or representations of
any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts,
graphs, microfiche, videotapes, recordings, motion pictures)
and electronic, mechanical or electric records or
representations of any kind (including without limitation,
tapes, cassettes, mag cards, disks, and recordings).
The term "all documents" means every document as above
defined known to you and every such document which can be
located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts.
The term "person" means any natural person, corporation,
partnership, proprietorship, association, organization or
group of natural persons.
As used herein, "you" or "your" means the Defendants and
all other persons acting or purporting to act on their
behalf.
If a request is made for the identification of documents
which are no longer in your possession or subject to your
control, state when and what disposition was made of them.
For each interrogatory, Or part of an interrogatory,
which you refuse to answer on the grounds of privilege
(privilege shall include work product) :
a. state the nature of the privilege and the
basis upon which the claim of privilege is
made; and
b. in addition, if the claim of privilege is
asserted with regard to a document, a precise
description of the contents of the documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Please list by name, address, judicial district,
race/ethnicity, if known, and officer who made the
appointment, each district court judge who has been appointed
to office in the past twenty (20) years:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
x
» won?
pe
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81,218, 36, 156,343, 22, 207, 24, 135, 267, 64, 242,
34, #205, 210.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Please state in which year the next election will be
held for district judge in each of the following districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 213, 36, 156, 343, 22, 207, 24,135,267, 64, 242,
34, "205, 210.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Please state whether candidates for the ‘position of
district judge must be elected by a majority of votes cast in
the relevant election.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Please identify by name, address, telephone number,
“
N
Sn. Py
- / . 4 bids.
place of employment, job position and/or title and nature of
testimony any expert witness who may testify on your behalf
should this case go to trial.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Please identify by name, address, telephone number,
place of employment, job position and/or title and nature of
information any person known to you who has knowledge or
information relevant to this case.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Please identify by name, address, telephone number and
job position and/or title each person who assisted in the
preparation of the Defendants' answers to Plaintiffs’
Interrogatories and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of
Documents and Things.
Respectfully submitted:
ROLANDO RIOS
Attorney at Law
Southwest Voter Registration
and Education Project, Inc.
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521
San Antonio, Texas 78205
State Bar No. 16935900
(512) 222-2102
WILLIAM C. GARRETT
BRENDA HULL THOMPSON
Garrett, Thompson & Chang
Attorneys at Law
8300 Douglas, Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75225
State Bar No. 07700000
(214) 369-1952
= : : » ie . oA
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
Attorney at Law
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
State Bar No. 07015500
(512) 222-2478
BY
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Rolando Rios , do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories has been
mailed via certified mail to William Clements, Jim Mattox,
Jack Rains, Thomas R. Phillips, “John F. Onion, Jr., Ron
Chapman, Thomas J. Stovall, Jr., James F. Clawson, Jr. , Joe
E. Kelly, Joe B. Evins, Sam B. Paxson, Weldon Kirk, Charles
J. Murray, Ray D. Anderson, and Joe Spurlock each at his
correct address on this day of + 1983.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
: j | »
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS. Civil Action No.
MO 88 CA 154
WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al.,
Defendants. CO
”
L
O
CO
”
LO
M
LO
R
LO
»
LO
N
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
The defendants in this action respond as follows to Plaintiffs’
First Request for Production of Documents and Things, served on
August 8, 1988. When a designation is made that the information is
available at a particular place, there is no intention to guarantee that
all the information requested will be available at that place; instead,
the intended representation is that, to the extent the information is
available anywhere within the defendants’ care, custody, or control,
it is available in the designated place.
Response to Request No. 1
This information is available in past and present compilations
of Texas statutes.
Response to Request No. 2
i
This information may be reviewed during regular business
hours at the Secretary of State's offices.
Response to_Request No. 3
See Response to Request No. 2.
f
Response to Request No. 4
This information is not available.
Response to Request No. 5
See Response to Request No.
Response to Request No. 6
See Response to Request No.
Response to Request No. 7
See Response to Request No.
Response to Request No. 8
See Response to Request No.
Response to Request No. 9
See Response to Request No.
Response to Request No. 10
None exists at this time.
Response to Request No. 11
See Response to Request No.
Dated: October 26, 1988
4,
10.
Weel
Renea Hicks
Special Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2085
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC Council No. 4434, et al.s§
Plaintiffs, §
) §
‘vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO.
§ MO-88-CA-154
WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al. §
Defendants. §
TO: Defendants WILLIAM CLEMENTS, JIM MATTOX, JACK RAINS, THOMAS ‘R. PHILLIPS, JOHN F. ONION, JR., RON CHAPMAN, THOMAS J. STOVALL, JR., JAMES F. CLAWSON, JR., JOE E. KELLY, JOE B. EVINS, SAM B. PAXSON, WELDON K1RK, CHARLES J. MURRAY, RAY D. ANDERSON and JOE SPURLOCK, each at his correct address.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, pursuant to Rules 34 and
36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, request the
Defendants, or any officer, agent or employee of Defendants
who has such information as is available, to answer in
writing and under oath, each and every one of the following
requests within forty five (45) days after service. These
requests shall be deemed continuing to the extent required by
Rule 26 (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Futhermore,
please produce any requested documents as they are kept in
the normal course of business or organize and label them to
correspond with the categories in this request.
As used herein, identify," "identity" or
"identification" means when used in reference to:
A. A natural person, his or her:
1. full name;
2. present or last known home and business
address, including street name and number,
city or town and state;
3. telephone number: and
4. present or last known position, job title and
job description.
B. A company, corporation, association, partnership,
joint venture, or any legal entity other than a
natural person, its:
l. full name and type of organization or entity;
2 telephone number; and
3. address of principal place of business.
CQ. ‘A document, its:
1. date and title;
2. author;
3. addressee;
4. a precise description of its contents; and
5. the identity of the person having possession
of the document.
Da. An election, the:
I. date;
2. type of election, specifically state, county,
city, primary election, general election, or
referendum; and
3. identity of the person having possession of
the official returns by precinct.
As used in this Request, "document" or "documents" means
all writings of any kind (including the originals and all
non-identical copies, whether different from the original by
reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise),
regardless of their origin or location, including without
limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries,
statistics, letter, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports,
studies, applications and proposals for federal and state
financial assistance, checks, statements, receipts, returns,
summaries, pamphlets, books, charts, maps, interoffice and
intraoffice communications, notations of any sort of
conversations, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts,
teletypes, telefax, worksheets and drafts, alterations,
modifications, changes, and amendments of any Of the
foregoing, graphic or aural records or representations of any
kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts,
graphs, microfiche, videotapes, recordings, motion pictures)
and electronic, mechanical Or electric records or
representations of any kind (including without limitation,
tapes, cassettes, mag cards, disks, and recordings).
The term "all documents" means every document as above
® mr
SN. A
defined known to you and every such document which can be
located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts.
The term "person" means any natural person, corporation,
partnership, proprietorship, association, organization or
group of natural persons.
As used in this Request, "you" or "your" means the
Defendants and all other persons acting or purporting to act
on their behalf.
If a request is made for the identification of documents
which are no longer in your possession or subject to your
control, state when and what disposition was made of them.
For each Request, or part of a Request, which you refuse
to answer on the grounds of privilege (privilege shall
include work product):
a. state the nature of the privilege and the
basis upon which the claim of privilege is
made; and
b. in addition, if the claim of privilege is
asserted with regard to a document, a precise
description of the contents of the documents.
REQUEST NO. 1
Please provide copies of documents that accurately show
the boundaries and district numbers of the judicial districts
for the past twenty (20) years for the following district
Courts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris
Dallas
Ector
McClennan
Tarrant
Midland
Travis
Jefferson
Galveston
Lubbock
Fort Bend
Smith
Brazos
Brazoria
Taylor
Wichita
Angelina
Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
Bl, 218,36, 156,
34, 205, 210.
REQUEST NO. 2
207, 24, 135, 267, 64, 242,
Please provide copies of documents that accurately show
the boundaries of voting precincts used in elections of
district court judges for the past twenty (20) years in the
following judicial districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris
Dallas
Ector
McClennan
Tarrant
Midland
Travis
Jefferson
Galveston
Lubbock
Fort Bend
Smith
Brazos
Brazoria
Taylor
Wichita
Angelina
Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 218, 36, 156,
34, 205,721.10.
REQUEST NO. 3
207, 24,.:1135, 267, 64, 242,
Please provide copies of documents showing the name and
address at time of candidacy of each candidate for the
® | a
position of district judge for the past twenty (20) years in
each of the following districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
Bl, 7218, 36, .156,. 343, 22, 207, 24, 135, 267, 64, 242,
34, 205, 210.
REQUEST NO. 4
Please provide election returns for the past twenty (20)
years by precinct for the position of district judge in each
election in which a minority ran as a candidate in each of
the following districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
Bl, 218,.36,>156, 343, 224::207,. 24,135, 267, 64, 242,
34,/°:205, 210,
REQUEST NO. 5
Please provide election returns for the past twenty (20)
years by county for the position of district judge in each
election in which a minority ran as a candidate in each of
the following districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 218, 36,156, 343, 22, 207, 24, 135,267, 64, 242,
34,205,210.
REQUEST NO. 6
Please provide documents that show the name and address
at the time of election of each person elected to the
position of district court judge in the following districts
in the past twenty (20) years:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 218, 36, 156, 343, 22,"207, 24,4135, 267, 64, 242,
34, 205,210.
REQUEST NO. 7
Please provide copies of documents, including but not
limited to campaign financial disclosure reports, that show
the race/ethnicity of each candidate for the position of
district judge in the past twenty (20) years in the following
judicial districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 218,36, 156, 343, 224.207, 24, 135, 267, 64, 242,
34,205,210.
REQUEST NO. 8
Please provide copies of documents that show the
race/ethnicity of each district judge in the past twenty (20)
years in the following judicial districts:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81, 218, 36,2156, 343, 22, 207,324, 135, 267, 64, 242,
34, 205,210.
REQUEST NO. 9
Please provide copies of documents that show the number
of registered voters by race/ethnicity for each election in
which a minority candidate ran in the following judicial
districts for the past twenty (20) years:
All district courts in the following counties:
Harris Lubbock
Dallas Fort Bend
Ector Smith
McClennan Brazos
Tarrant Brazoria
Midland Taylor
Travis Wichita
Jefferson Angelina
Galveston Gregg
: Bell
and the judicial district for district courts numbered:
81," 218,36, 156, 343, 22, 207, .24, 135, 267, 64, 242,
34, 205,210,
REQUEST NO. 10
Please provide copies of any documents that you have
provided to any experts who may testify on your behalf in
this case.
* -
:
p
:
i
Pos AW
REQUEST NO. 11
Please provide copies of any written reports that any
experts have provided to you for this case.
Respectfully submitted:
ROLANDO RIOS
Attorney at Law
Southwest Voter Registration
and Education Project, Inc.
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521
San Antonio, Texas 78205
State Bar No. 16935900
(512) 222-2102
WILLIAM C. GARRETT
BRENDA HULL THOMPSON
Attorneys at Law
Garrett, Thompson & Chang
8300 Douglas, Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75225
State Bar No. 07700000
(214) 369-1952
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
Attorney at Law
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
State Bar No. 07015500
(512) 222-2478
BY
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Rolando Rios, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents
and Things has been mailed via certified mail to William
Clements, Jim Mattox, Thomas R. Phillips, Jack Rains, John F.
10
a Fa »
.
gk
op
Onion, Jr., Ron Chapman, Thomas J. Stovall, Jr., James F.
Clawson, Jr., Joe E. Kelly, Joe B. Evins, Sam B. Paxson,
Weldon Kirk, Charles J. Murray, Ray D. Anderson, and Joe
Spurlock each at his correct address on this day of
L,3:1988,
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
11