Defendant Wood's Response to Houston Lawyers' Association's Reply Brief

Public Court Documents
October 18, 1989

Defendant Wood's Response to Houston Lawyers' Association's Reply Brief preview

7 pages

Includes Correspondence from Keyes to Clerk.

Cite this item

  • Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Defendant Wood's Response to Houston Lawyers' Association's Reply Brief, 1989. 21e7ccf2-247c-f011-b4cc-6045bdffa665. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6f3b10bd-cf82-4fe3-8ae6-688787a4c820/defendant-woods-response-to-houston-lawyers-associations-reply-brief. Accessed November 06, 2025.

    Copied!

    SIN. 
~~ Lr. R 

PorRTER & CLEMENTS RY 
A WA A 

FIRST REPUBLICBANK CENTER &// Lal { INA ‘ 
4 a. 7b, 700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 TR ¢/ / 

Se: VO VY, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 Yo. A, y . LN. 
ATTORNEYS Xs, TEN Opn XK / 

Wy DNV As) NA 

A PARINERSINE INDLUDING TELEPHONE (713) 226-0600 Na v 7/7 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS he CHEW gg ; TELECOPIER (713) 228-1331 dl V 
TELECOPIER (713) 224-4835 Soi N2Y/ 

EVELYN V. KEYES TELEX 775-348 be, WY 
(713) 226-061 S, 

October 18, 1989 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
  

Mr. John Neil 
Clerk, U.S. District Court 
200 FE. Wall St., Suite 316 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: No. MO88-CA-154; League of United Latin American 
Citizens (LULAC), et al. v. James Mattox, Attorney 
General of Texas, et al.; In the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa 
Division 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case is Defen- 
dant Wood's Response to Houston Lawyers' Association's Reply 
Brief. 

Please return a file stamped copy of this document to me in 
the enveloped provided. 

A copy of this filing is being served on counsel of record 
by first class mail, postage prepaid. 

Sincerely yours, 

Grit Vfl 
Evelyn V. Keyes 

EVK/cdf 
enclosures 

cc: Mr. William L. Garrett 
Ms. Brenda Hall Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
Attorneys at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201 N, St. Mary's, Suite 521} 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 



i 

ad     
PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. John Neil 

October 18, 1989 

Page -2- 

CC: Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Julius Levonne Chambers 
Ms, ‘Sherrilyn a. 1fill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas 
Ms. Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General 
Ms. Renea Hicks, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
Mr. Javier Guajardo, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
P, O. Box 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
777 So. R.L. Thornton Freeway, Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

 



  

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

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

Vv. NO. MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, Attorney General 
of the State of Texas, et al. N

W
O
)
 

WD
 

WD
) 

Dh
 

WA
 

DEFENDANT WOOD'S RESPONSE TO HOUSTON 
LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION'S REPLY BRIEF 
  

  

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

Defendant-Intervenor Harris County District Judge Wood 

("Judge Wood") files this Response to the Houston Lawyers’ 

Association's ("HLA"'s) Reply Brief, which is untimely and 

incorporates matters outside the record to the prejudice of Judge 

Wood. 

I. THE HILA'S REPLY BRIEF 1S UNTIMELY. 

The deadline for filing Post-Trial Briefs in this case was 

September 29, 1989, and the deadline for filing Reply Briefs was 

October 5, 1989. The HLA failed to serve its Post-Trial Brief on 

Judge Wood. She was able to obtain a copy by fax from counsel 

for the HLA on October 3, 1989, and timely filed her Reply Brief 

by sending it to the Court on October 5, 1989, by Federal Express 

in accordance with instructions from the Clerk of the Court. A 

week later, after having enjoyed the unique benefit of reading 

everyone else's Reply Briefs, the HLA filed its Reply Brief with 

the Court and mailed it to Judge Wood. It was received by 

 



  

counsel for Judge Wood on October 17, 1989, almost two weeks 

after the deadline. 

Judge Wood files this Response in order to object to the 

untimely prejudicial filing of the HLA's Reply Brief -- which 

follows on numerous untimely filings and responses by the 

Plaintiffs and the HLA in this case -- and to object to the HLA's 

reliance in that Reply Brief on matters entirely outside the 

record of this case. 

II. THE HLA'S REPLY BRIEF INCORPORATES 

MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD. 

In its Reply to Post-Trial Briefs, the HLA relies in part 

upon quoted excerpts of testimony from the trial transcript of 

Gingles v, Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345 (E.D.N.C. 1984), which it 
  

refers to as "Gingles," thereby confounding the District Court 

case with the Supreme Court case of Thornburg v. Gingles, 106 
  

S.Ct. 2752 (1986), which reversed the District Court's opinion in 

part and affirmed it in part. The testimony cited purports to 

establish that inquiry into partisanship is inappropriate in 

determining Voting Rights Act violations. 

Since the facts in Edmisten are not in evidence in this case 
  

and its transcript is not part of the record, Judge Wood can only 

speculate on the context and even the validity of the quotations 

cited by the HLA. Accordingly, she requests that this Court 

place no weight on the HLA's citations to Edmisten. Judge Wood   

also calls the Court's attention to the fact that the District 

Court's opinion in Edmisten was analyzed in Thornburg v. Gingles 
    

by both Justice Brennan and Justice O'Connor without any 

 



reference to the testimony or arguments cited as controlling by 

the HLA. Moreover, Justice O'Connor pointed out in her opinion 

that only a plurality of the Supreme Court accepted that part of 

Justice Brennan's opinion which addressed the validity of the 

statistical evidence on which the District Court relied. 106 

8.Ct. at 2792 (O'Connor, J. concurring in the Judgment only). 

Therefore, the testimony and arguments on which the District 

Court relied in Edmisten, and on which the HLA in turn relies, 
  

cannot be said to have been accepted as probative by the Supreme 

Court and their value is all the more attenuated in the present 

case. 

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood respectfully requests 

that the Court place no ‘weight on: the HLA's citations to 

Edmisten. 
  

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

  

  
  

a 

Eugene Clements TE" 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
fouston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600 

  

ATTORNEY FOR HARRIS COUNTY 
DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD 

OF COUNSEL: 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600  



  

Michael J. Wood 

Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 228-5105 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on tne | 9th day of October, 1989, a 
true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant Wood' S 
Response to Houston Lawyers' Association's Reply Brief was mailed 
to counsel of record in this case by first class United States 
mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Ms. Brenda Hall Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
Attorneys at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201° N, St. Mary's, Suite 521 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Julius Levonne Chambers 
Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

 



  

Mr. Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas 

Ms. Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General 
Mr. Renea Hicks, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
Mr. Javier Guajardo, Spec. Assistant Attorney General 
P.. OO. Box 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
777 So. R.L.. Thornton Freeway 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

COWL / byt 
“GEvelyy/'¥. Keyes 
  

WO004/40/cdf

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.