Order Re: Joint Motions for Proposed Interim Plan

    Pi a gee Sid gmt re TRLA-SAN_ANTONIO TEL No.2229408 Tan. 2.90 18116. ,04 

LAW OFFICES OF 

TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC, ¢ 
20! NORTH ST. MARY'S ST., SUITE 600 

SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 78205 
i812) 222-2478 

FACSIMILE (FAX) COVER SHEET 
se se se sk ae be of ok ok ok ok obese oe oe se oe sea Se aes af he ka aes ae ae ae ae ales sf fof oe soa ae ok af sf fe sok oe se se of fe oe 3 

DATE: /- 0-70 TIME: © 
  

  —_— 

{ 

PAGES OF TRANSMISSION INCLUDING COVER SHEET: // 

L : FAX iy iG JR 7 J 

YO sos J ; | NUMBER:(2 Z 
  

  

OF: 
  

riomull Fonbelctiin FAX NUMBER: (512) 222-9408 
  

Initials of Transmitter: cl 
  

Remarks: 
  

20 PLA     

  

IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, 

PLEASE CONTACT ‘aA men— 

AT (512) 222-2478. 
sk 3k sk sk Sk 3k 3k 3 ok 3 ok 3k dk df 2k vk ok sf ak ae ak sje ak 3k she dic ok Ske she She se she de Se she 3k Sk sk de dk sk sk dk ok de dk dk dk dk ok dk ok ok ok sk kok ok 

  

 



T £9 

[RLA-SAN_ANTUONID 

if 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . | i F D 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Jay 2 1-1 

U. &. DisTRICT COURT 

X'8 OFFICE 

BY.. over DEPUTY 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), COUNCIL Ka434 

et al., 
Plaintiffs 

and 

HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 

et al., 
Plajntiff-Intervenors 

V. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

: State Defendants 

and 

JUDGE SHARDLYN WOOD and 

JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 

§ 
§ 
H 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

ORDER 
  

BEFORE THIS COURT are the parties with their rhspective Pro- 

posed Interim Pians, Motions to Certify this Courtys Memorandum 

opinion and Order, of November 8, 1988, for Interipcutory Appeal, 

and Motion of Bexar County District Judges to Intepvene in the 

above captioned cause. 

This case is reminiscent of several lines of 3 recent song, 

1'm for Love, by Hank williams, Jr. The lyric goes, 
  

nthe city is against the county, 

The county is against the state, 

The state is against the government, dnd 

The highway still ain't paved.” 

In this case the Governor has been against thy Attorney    



    

  

' Aamo b mee 

TRLR=SAN_ANTONIO 
- 

bi 

Br Se or Gm de wm ew Mh he SE EE EE ee ee Ae A ERE we 

ron 

. Ba Be be be ome ow we we we we ee BP PE SEED EE EER WN ea ae ae ed al go - md Sw ——— SR 

JAl{ & 30 12:57 MIDLAND REPORTER-TELE PAGE .R3 

'® 2,90 15:08 P.03 

  

General, the Attorney General against the Legislatyre, the Judges 

against this Court, and the system fs stil) flawed] This 1s a   
regrettable situation, but 1t can't be helped. Thi Hank 

Williams song goes on to say "But I'm for ove, ol I'm for 

happiness.” 

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

trial on February 13, 1988, The Court was persuaded, at least   
on one occasion, to continue the trial to give thei Texas 

Legislature a chance to address the issue during igs Regular 

Session. This Court continued the above captioned cause to April 

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

tion of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in thy case of Reemer 

/. chisom. The Court again continued the case to Puly 11, 1989, 

based on oral Motions to Continue made on the recdrd during & 

hearing on Motions to Intervene held by this Courtf on February 

27, 1989. The Court continued the trial to Septenper 18, 1988, 

because of & conflict of settings with one’ of the jattorneys. At 

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

to hand down {ts opinien prior to the convening of the Texas   
Legisiature fn Special Session so that a violation (if one was   
indeed found) could be vooked at and perhaps remedied during the 

special Session. 

This Court specifically reserved ruling upon laintiffs’ 

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

tion scheme in the affected counties until the Stpte Legislature   
 



  
    

[RLH- o AN_ANTONIO TEL N0o.2229408 Yan. 2.90 1512 F. 04 

— m—— — — — df We Se Bh Se SS. Se EA ES Sn EE EE SR GE SE Gh Ah Se A Sed Be See Se AE Se be TE Bd SE de de fe Se dee de Se Se Sd Se ee — —— —— —— — — — — 

JAIL 2 80 1z:58 MIDLAND REPORTER~TELE FAGE , B4 

had an opportunity to offer & remedial plan. The Legislature 

went into Special Session on November 13, 1383, sgme five days 

after entry of this Court's November 8, 1983 Ordeg. Governor 

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

cia) redistricting to the Special Session. The Gevernor did, 

however, request that he and this Court meet and giscuss the   
matter. The meeting was held, and attorneys for both Plaintiffs 

and Defendants were present. The Governor ik the Court that 

no remedy would be forthcoming until some time after the March 

13, 1990 Primary Elections. The Governor requestpd that the 

matter be delayed until the Regular Session of the Legislature in 

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

satisfactory, he would call a Special Session som time in Apri} 

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

whatever action might be necessary to remedy the bituation. 

The timing is perhaps unforiunate. There wil) be a census 

taken $n 1990, which may reflect some changes in bopulat ion in 

the nine counties involved. Our Legislature mee ths in Regular 

session only in odd years and inevitably somewhere down the line 

the method of selection or election of State Disyrict Judges will 

have to be submitted to the voters of Texas. Thg Court 1s of the 

opinion that a delay until after the Primary Eleqtions are held 

in 1950 and a delay until after a Special Seti of the 

Legislature 1s held in late spring of 1890 and a [further delay of 

{mplementation of any solution by the Lesisiaturs would not be in 

- J =   
 



TRLA-SHAN_ANTONIO 

the interest of justice, would further dilute the fights of 

minority voters in the target counties in question and would be 

{nequitable and work an even greater hardship on Je judges and 

courts involved. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978). Under these circumstances, this   
Court 4s of the opinion that 4t may fashion an interim plan that 

  

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

pecember 12, 1989, or shortly thereafter, 211 partiies were 

advised to file any proposed Plans and Objections Mith the Court 

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

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

not approved by some of the Intervenors. 

The Court should point out that the State Legf{siature will 

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

sistent with this Court's November 8, 1889 Order ghould it con- 

vene, and should it pass Jegistation in April or Ray of 1990. 

The plan which follows {5 strictly an interim plan for the 

1990 elections affecting 11% State District Court judicial seats 

{n the nine counties in action. Upon consideratipn of the 

~- 4 -    



  

PRGE, 0B 

Motions, Responses, Objections, letters, exhibits, ,jattachments 

and arguments of the parties, the Court 4s of the ppinfon that the 

following Orders are appropriate. Accordingly, 

IT 15 ORDERED that the Joint Motion of Pratntifts, Plaintifr- 

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

- 

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

in the following respects: 

1. All Defendants and those acting in concert| are hereby 

enjoined from calling, holding, supervising and certifying elec- 

tions for State District Court Judges in Harris, DB 1 as, 

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

Counties under the current at-large scheme. 

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

Jtate of Texas, one hundred fifteen (115) Districy Court 

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

Order. The following number of District Courts ane up for elec 

tion by respective county: Harris (36); Dallas (32); Tarrant   
(14): Bexar (13); Travis (6); Jefferson (6); Lubbdek (3); Ector 

(3); and Midland (2). 

Under this Interim Plan, District Court Elect {ons in Harris, 

pallas, Tarrant and Bexar Counties shall be selected from 

existing State Legislative House District lines ag indicated in 

District Court Elections in Travis [County shall   Attachment A. 

be from existing Justice of the Peace Precinct Lis 

District Court Elections in Jefferdon, Lubbock, 

es. See 

Attachment A. 

“bia     
 



  

ie ibe bho dubai dots EN A 
dh I — 

JR & se [3:62 MIDLAND REPORTER~-TELE 

Ector and Midland Counties shall be according to eg 

Commissioner Precinct Lines. Id. Each county sha 

by a District Number, and each election unit by sup 

number. 

3, Each candidate shal) run within a designatp 

and be elected by the voters in the subdistrict, [   the Texas Constitution, each candidate must bear 

13 290 TRLA-SAN_ANTONIO EL ND.2229408 

: 

isting County 

1 be designated 

district 

d subdistrict 

onsistent with 

sident of his 

or her designated judicial district (which 1s countywide), but 

need not be a resident of the election subdistrict 

4. Elections shall pe non-partisan. Each can date shal) 

select the election subdistrict 1n which he or she wil] run by 

designated place. Candidates in Dallas, Tarrant, B 

and Midland Counties shal) file an application for 

exar, Ector 

a place on the 

election ballot with the County Elections Adminisfirator. Tex. 

Elec. Code Ann. §31.03) et seq. (Vernon 1986). Can 

Harris, Travis, Jefferson and Lubbock Counties sha! 

application with the County Clerk of those countids 

Tax Assessor-Collector, depending on the practice lo 

didates in 

1 file such an 

or the County 

f that par- 

ticular county. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§31.1031 ef seq., 31.09} 

(Vernon 1986). 

5. Al) terms of office under this Interim P1dn 

four (4) years. Tex. Const. Art. Vv, §7 (1976, am¢n 

This Court is of the opinfon that a two-year term] 

both those beginning and those ending their judic|a 

6. Elections shall take place the first Satuld 

6.   
  

shall be for 

ded 1985). 

s unfair to 

1 careers. 

ay of May, 

 



  

TRLA-SAN_ANTUONIU 

We a eS Ae a ae 

MIDLAND REPORTER-TELE 
2 JAN '90 13:83 

1890, with Run-off Elections to take place the ff 

June, 1890, Tex. Elec. Code Ann. $41.001(b)(5) ( 

1989). 

7s 

ballot must be filed not ater than 6:00 p.m. on 

Except as modified herein, all provisions of the 

Code shall be applicable to the non-partisan elect 

ordered. 

8. 

district shal) designate: 

In 1991, the Administrative Judge of the d 

(1) Any courts of specialization in tem 

docket preference; and 

(2) The District Court numbers in use pr 

the Interim Plan's adoption. Successful incus 

shall have preference in such designation. 

9. Current jurisdiction and venue of the Dis 

remain unaffected, subject to modification by rulf 

Court of Texas. 

10. There shall be no right of recusal of such 

under this plan. This Court 1s of the view that 

would be extremely disruptive to District Court d 

fstratively costly and could be the source of abu} 

attempting to gain continuances of their cases. 

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that the above Interim 

PAGE , 08 

  

An application for a place on the non-part 

t Saturday of 

rnon Supp. 

isan election   
rch 26, 1990. 

xas Election 

fons herein 

ountywide 

s of 

ior to 

bents 

rict Courts 

of the Supreme 

es elected 

juch a measure 

pckets, admin- 

e by attorneys 

Plan applies 
  

only to the 1990 State District Court Judicial E) 

- 3. 

ctions in the   
  

ftbendbndiend EE EN



WOO Er PT OWE we UE EE EE EE SE SE BE ES ER EE BS eh de dee 

    

—————— WS Se BME Se fi a fv — — — — —— — —— 

Jal 2 +88 13:84 MIDLAND REPORTER-TELE 

nine target counties at issue in this case. 

lature 

Called Session in the spring of 1950, then this Co 

into effect a Permanent Plan for the election of § 

Court Judges in the nine target counties in questi 

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions of Defe 

Intervenor JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, Defendant-Interven 

ENTZ and the State Defendants to Certify this Coun 

Opinion and Order of November B, 1989 as modified 

corrections on November 27, 1989 and December 26, 

Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(% 

GRANTED IN PART. 

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that 

, G0 be ? 

If th 

fails to fashion a permanent remedy by way 

15:03 F.OG 

PRGE . 0S 

> Texas Legis- 

of a Special 

rt will put 

bate District 

PN» 

ndant- 

pr JUDGE HAROLD 

L's Memorandum 

for clerical 

1989 for 

} 1s hereby 

such Motions 

request a stay of further proceedings in the oy captioned 

cause such Motions are hereby DENIED. 

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Bexar 

A»
 
T
o
 

TOM RICKOFF, SUSAN D. REED, JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., 3 

SHARON MACRAE and MICHAEL P. PEDEN to Intervene as 

the above captioned cause 1s hereby DENIED. 

This Court, of course, has granted the right | 

utory Appeal, The request to stay proceedings pes 

ts DENIED, because the Courtidoes not feel that D 

should be continued in office for an indefinite pg 

The right of the electorate to select judges in th 

should not be denied unless, of course, fnterim a 

-8- 

County Judges 

10 L. HARLE, 

Defendants in 

or an Interloc- 

ding the appeal 

strict Judges 

ried of time. 

e year 1990 

ttion is   
 



  

TRLA-SHN_ANTONID TEL No.2229408 Jan 

ddl EH 

  

JAN & '80 13:85 MIDLAND REPORTER-TELE 

taken by the Texas Legislature which changes the m 

  

  
thod of the 

selection and election of judges. The pressing negd for the 

administration of justice in our state courts is r cognized, It 

is the opinfon of this Court that the plan set for 

the least disruptive that can be effected at this J 

allow Primary Elections in 1990 to be held in the : 

they were in 1988 would be contra to the dictates 

Circuit law and the Congressional Mandate of the V 

Acts. Recognition that the November 8, 1989 Judgmi 

reaching effects 1s the reason for the allowance o 

appeal, and again the Court would encourage the Go 

a Special Session to address the matter and, furth 

h herein is 

uncture. To 

ame manner as 

  
f Fifth 

ting Rights 

nt has far- 

an expedited 

fernor to call 

br, would 

request that the State Legislature remedy the currgnt situation, 

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

this interim remedy should be done by duly elected legislators. 

SIGNED and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 19p0. 

   
   

  

UNT 

  

hief Judge 

  

iii —