HLA Memorandum in Opposition to Judge Wood's Motion for Leave to File a Post-Submission Brief

    May 8, 1990 

Hon. Gilbert F. Ganucheau 
Clerk of the Court 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Re:  LULAC v. Mattox, No. 90-8014   

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed please find plaintiff-appellee Houston Lawyers’ Association et al.’s Opposition to defendant-appellant Judge Sharolyn Wood’s Motion for Leave to Fill ‘a Post-Submission Brief in the above referenced case. ' 

Copies have been served on all counsel of record. 

Sincerely, 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill . 
Counsel for Houston Lawyers’ Association, et al. 

  

NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR * (212) 219-1900 ° NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 90-8014 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, 

et al., 
Plaintiff-intervenor Respondents, 

JIM MATTOX, ATTORNEY GENERAL.OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS} et al. ; at | 

Defendant-Appellants 

ee ec ve et tr we etm eee en ee et 0 a es i te tc er 

Appeal from the United States -District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland-Odessa Division 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION et al.'s MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 
TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD'S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE A POST-SUBMISSION BRIEF 

  

  

  

Defendant-intervenor appellant, Judge Sharolyn Wood has moved 

for leave to file a post-submission brief on the grounds that the 

parties in this case have not "expressly briefed or argued" the 

issue of whether section 5 covers judicial elections and "whether 

the scope of §2 of the Voting Rights Act coincides with the scope 

of §s5.M Wood Motion at 2. Plaintiff-intervenor appellant 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et al., opposes this motion for the 

 



  

following reasons: 

1. Nothing in Judge Wood's post-submission brief or motion 

is relevant to the case at hand or likely to elucidate the issues 

before this court. First, this case is not a section 5 case. The 

plaintiffs in this action do not contend that Art. 5, Section 7 of 

the Texas Constitution was not properly submitted to the Justice 

Department in 1985, nor do they take issue with the Justice 

Department's preclearance of the relevant amendments to the Texas 

Constitution.’ 

The issue of section 5's application to judicial elections is 

well-settled law, Haith v. Martin, 618 F.Supp. 410 (E.D.N.C.1985), 
  

aff'd, 477-U.S. 9201 (1986), and has never been raised as an issue 

in this case. Judge Wood's pos t-atounent brief. on an issue which: 

is not before the court in this case, and which has been fully 

litigated, briefed and decided by the Supreme Court in a prior 

case, in no way furthers Judge Wood's purported interest in the 

"development of a complete record on the pivotal issues in this 

case," nor would it be of "convenience" to this Court. Defendant 

Wood's Motion at 2. 

2. Similarly, this Circuit fully reconciled the application 

  

'As the Justice Department specifically stated in its letter 
to the Secretary of State of Texas, "failure of the Attorney 
General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to 
enjoin the enforcement of such change." See, Brief of Defendant- 
intervenor-appellant Wood, Exhibit B. Moreover, no language in the 
amended Voting Rights Act or in subsequent voting rights case law, 
implies that preclearance by the Justice Department of a voting 
change, creates an inference that no section 2 violation exists. 

2 

 



of section 2 and section 5 to judicial elections in Chisom v.   

Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Chisom Vv.   

Roemer, 109 S.Ct. 390 (1988). In a section of its opinion devoted 

exclusively to this issue, a panel of this court rejected the 

distinction offered by the Chisom defendants that section 5 could 

apply to judicial elections, while section 2 could not. 839 F.2d 

at 1064, This Court concluded that "statutory construction, 

consistency, and practicality point inexorably to the conclusion 

that if section 5 applies to the judiciary, section 2 must also 

apply to the judiciary." 14. Judge Wood asserts the same 

arguments for distinguishing the application of sections 2 and 5 

for judicial elections as offered by the Chisom defendants. 

4 { 

Defendant-intervenor Wood's attempt to instruct this court on 

the proper review of statutory construction and case law relevant 

to the question at issue in Chisom is inappropriate and unlikely 

to assist this court in its disposition of the case at hand. See 

Wood Brief at pp.4-16 (Chisom panel based its conclusion . . . on 

a flawed analogy between section 2 and 5" Brief at p. 7); 

(Chisom...ignor[ed] the ordinary meaning of the limiting language 

in section 2(b)" Brief at p.12). 

3. Finally, since the defendants clearly intended to pursue 

their claim on appeal that Chisom was wrongly decided, (See Brief 

on Appeal of Defendant-intervenor Wood at p.15, n.15; Brief of 

State Defendants at p.18, n.9 ), they had a full opportunity to 

brief the issue of the coincident application of section 2 and  



  

section 5 prior to oral argument in their briefs and reply briefs 

on appeal. 

WHEREFORE, the Houston Lawyers’ Association, et al., 

respectfully request that this court deny the motion of Harris 

County District Judge Sharolyn Wood for leave to file an post- 

submission brief. 

Re    

  

ectfully sykmitted, 

  

JULIUS LeVONKE el / 
SHERRILYN A. IFILL 

99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 n
a
t
 

| 
: § 

Of Counsel: ' GABRIELLE K. McDONALD 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 301 Congress Avenue 

" Suite 2050 
austin, TX. 78701 

ov 

Dated: May 8, 1990 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 1990, a true 

and correct copy of Houston Lawyers' Association et al.'s 

Memorandum in Opposition to Harris County District Judge Sharolyn 

Wood's Motion for Leave to File a Post-submission Brief was mailed 

to counsel of record in this case by first class United States 

mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett J. Eugene Clements 
Brenda Hall Thompson John E. O'Neill 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang Evelyn V. Keyes 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 Porter & Clements 
Dallas, TX 75225 700 Louisiana,, Suite 3500 

; : Houston, TX 77002-2730 

it
e 

Roland L. Rios Michael J. Wood 
-Southwest Voter Registration Attorney at Law 

and Education Project -* i: 440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
201 North St. Mary's Street Houston, TX 77002 
Suite 521 : : 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein John L. Hill, Jr. 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 
201 North St. Mary's Street Hill & LaBoon 
Suite 600 3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Houston, TX 77002 

Edward B. Cloutman, III David R. Richards 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Special Counsel 

Cloutman, P.C. 600 West 7th Street 
3301 Elm Street Austin, TX 78701 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

Jim Mattox Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mary F. Keller Hughes & Luce 
Renea Hicks 2800 Momentum Place 
Javier Guajaro 1717 Main Street 
Attorney General's Office Dallas, TX 75201 
Supreme Court Building 
1401 Colorado Street 
7th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701-2548 

H 

 



  

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 

Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 South R. L. Thornton 

Freeway 

Suite 121 
Dallas, TX 75203 

Darrell Smith 
10999 Interstate Highway 10 
Suite 905 
San Antonio, TX 78230 

Mark H. Dettman 
P.O. . Box 2559 

200 West wall ; 

Midland County Courthouse 
2nd Floor . 
Midland, TX 79702 

Walter L. Irvin 
5787 South Hampton Road 
Suite 210, Lock Box 122 
Dallas, TX 75232-2255 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

Tom Rugg 
Jefferson County Courthouse 
Beaumont, TX 77701 

John R. Dunne 
Jessica Dunsay Silver 
c/o Hon. , Richard Thornburgh 
Attorney! General of the United 

States : 
United States Department of 
Justice 
Main Justice: Building 
10th & Pennsylvania 

Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

Simp of y ZS 
  

/ Sherrilyn As Ifill 
Attorney for Plaintiff reat 
Appellees, 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et al. 

 



    

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 90-8014 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL. NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, 

et al., 
Plaintiff-intervenor Respondents, 

JIM MATTOX, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., : 

Defendant-Appellants 

——————— TD SD 0 SW (SS AS Se Sm Sm SSS em CHGS NS SND CISD (SED (NSD MAS GG SAN GSS GS GS, GSS GN GED i SSG CNS SHS SE GUS GEN CHS END SIND GUND SSD A SD WSR SSS SSS SONS SGT SE SSD SUNS GND mS mms 

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland-Odessa Division 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION et al.'s MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 
TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD'S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE A POST-SUBMISSION BRIEF 

  

  

  

Defendant-intervenor appellant, Judge Sharolyn Wood has moved 

for leave to file a post-submission brief on the grounds that the 

parties in this case have not "expressly briefed or argued" the 

issue of whether section 5 covers judicial elections and "whether 

the scope of §2 of the Voting Rights Act coincides with the scope 

of §5." Wood Motion at 2. Plaintiff-intervenor appellant 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et al., opposes this motion for the 

 



following reasons: 

1. Nothing in Judge Wood's post-submission brief or motion 

is relevant to the case at hand or likely to elucidate the issues 

before this court. First, this case is not a section 5 case. The 

plaintiffs in this action do not contend that Art. 5, Section 7 of 

the Texas Constitution was not properly submitted to the Justice 

Department in 1985, nor do they take issue with the Justice 

Department's preclearance of the relevant amendments to the Texas 

1 
Constitution. 

The issue of section 5's application to judicial elections is 

  

well-settled law, Haith v. Martin, 618 F.Supp. 410 (E.D.N.C.1985), 

aff'd, 477 U.S. 901 (1986), and has never been raised as an issue 

in this case. Jidge Wood's post-argument brief on an issue which 

is not before the court in this case, and which has been fully 

litigated, briefed and - decided by the Supreme Court in a prior. 

case, in no way furthers Judge Wood's purported interest in the 

"development of a complete record on the pivotal issues in this 

case," nor would it be of "convenience" to this Court. Defendant 

Wood's Motion at 2. 

Similarly, this Circuit fully reconciled the application 

  

'As the Justice Department specifically stated in its letter 
to the Secretary of State of Texas, "failure of the Attorney 
General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to 
enjoin the enforcement of such change." See, Brief of Defendant- 
intervenor-appellant Wood, Exhibit B. Moreover, no language in the 
amended Voting Rights Act or in subsequent voting rights case law, 
implies that preclearance by the Justice Department of a voting 
change, creates an inference that no section 2 violation exists. 

2  



  

of section 2 and section 5 to judicial elections in Chisom v.   

Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Chisom v. 
  

Roemer, 109 S.Ct. 390 (1988). In a section of its opinion devoted 

exclusively to this issue, a panel of this court rejected the 

distinction offered by the Chisom defendants that section 5 could 

apply to judicial elections, while section 2 could not. 839 F.2d 

at 1064. This Court concluded that "statutory construction, 

consistency, and practicality point inexorably to the conclusion 

that if section 5 applies to the judiciary, section 2 must also 

apply to the judiciary." Id. Judge Wood asserts the same 

arguments for distinguishing the application of sections 2 and 5 

for judicial elections as offered by the Chisom defendants. 
: 

Defendant-intervenor Wood's attempt to instruct this court on 

the proper review of statutory construction and case law relevant 

to the question at issue in Chisom is inappropriate and unlikely 

to assist this court in its disposition of the case at hand. See 

Wood Brief at pp.4-16 (Chisom panel based its conclusion . . . on 

a flawed analogy between section 2 and 5" Brief at p. 7); 

(Chisom...ignor[ed] the ordinary meaning of the limiting language 

in section 2(b)" Brief at p.12). 

3. Finally, since the defendants clearly intended to pursue 

their claim on appeal that Chisom was wrongly decided, (See Brief 

on Appeal of Defendant-intervenor Wood at p.15, n.15; Brief of 

State Defendants at p.18, n.9 ), they had a full opportunity to 

brief the issue of the coincident application of section 2 and 

n
a
t
 

 



  

section 5 prior to oral argument in their briefs and reply briefs 

on appeal. 

WHEREFORE, the Houston Lawyers' Association, et al., 

respectfully request that this court deny the motion of Harris 

County District Judge Sharolyn Wood for leave to file an post- 

submission brief. 

    

  

Reghectfully sykmitted, 

  

JULIUS LeVONKE ne 
SHERRILYN A. IFILL 

99 Hudson Street 

: l6th Floor 
| : $ ; New York, New York 10013, 

of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. McDONALD 

MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB i 301 Congress Avenue 
z Suite 2050 

Austin, TX 78701 | 

Dated: May 8, 1990 

 



b g 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 1990, a true 

and correct copy of Houston Lawyers' Association et al.'s 

Memorandum in Opposition to Harris County District Judge Sharolyn 

Wood's Motion for Leave to File a Post-submission Brief was mailed 

to counsel of record in this case by first class United States 

mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

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

Roland L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration 

and Education Project 
201 North St. Mary's Street 
Suite 521 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 North St. Mary's Street 
Suite 600 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

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

Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

Jim Mattox 
Mary F. Keller 
Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajaro 
Attorney General's Office 
Supreme Court Building 
1401 Colorado Street 
7th Floor 
Austin, TX 78701-2548 

J. Eugene Clements 
John E. O'Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
_ Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

: 440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 

John. L. Hill, Jr. 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Commerce Tower 

Houston, TX 77002 

David R. Richards 
Special Counsel 
600 West 7th Street 

Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, TX 75201  



  

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 

Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 South: R. L. Thornton 

Freeway 

Suite 121 
Dallas, TX 75203 

Darrell Smith 
10999 Interstate Highway 10 
Suite 905 

San Antonio, TX 78230 

Mark H. Dettman 

P.O. Box 2559 

200 West Wall 

Midland County Caurthouse 

2nd Floor . ; 

Midland, TX 79702 

Walter L. Irvin 
5787 South Hampton Road 
Suite 210, Lock Box 122 
Dallas, TX 75232-2255 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

Tom Rugg 
Jefferson County Courthouse 
Beaumont, TX 77701 

John R. Dunne 
Jessica Dunsay Silver 
c/o Hon. Richard Thornburgh 
Attorney Genera) of the United 

s * States 
: United States Department of 

Justice 
Main Justice Building 
10th -& Pennsylvania 
‘Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

lb 17 Yl / pie 
  

/ Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
Attorney for Plaintiff tent rs 
Appellees, 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et al. 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

POR THE PIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 90-8014 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, 

et al., 
Plaintiff-intervenor Respondents, 

JIM MATTOX, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, et al., | 

® p 

Defendant-Appellants 

 — —— 0 AD (00 SS AA CD SS a SSC |S SS (SC Ss GOT Cy RD (DD Sl DUS SUM CA ET ST TD TD CTD UTD TD SS 

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland-Odessa Division 

HOUSTON LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION et al.'s MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 
TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD'S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE A POST-SUBMISSION BRIEF 

  

  

  

Defendant-intervenor appellant, Judge Sharolyn Wood has moved 

for leave to file a post-submission brief on the grounds that the 

parties in this case have not "expressly briefed or argued" the 

issue of whether section 5 covers judicial elections and "whether 

the scope of §2 of the Voting Rights Act coincides with the scope 

of §5.9 Wood Motion at 2. Plaintiff-intervenor appellant 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et l., opposes this motion for the 

 



  

following reasons: 

1. Nothing in Judge Wood's post-submission brief or motion 

is relevant to the case at hand or likely to elucidate the issues 

before this court. First, this case is not a section 5 case. The 

plaintiffs in this action do not contend that Art. 5, Section 7 of 

the Texas Constitution was not properly submitted to the Justice 

Department in 1985, nor do they take issue with the Justice 

Department's preclearance of the relevant amendments to the Texas 

Constitution.’ 

The issue of section 5's application to judicial elections is 

well-settled law, Haith v. Martin, 618 F.Supp. 410 (E.D.N.C.1985), 
  

aff'd, 4772.0.5.. 901 (1936), and has never been raised as an issue 

in this dasd. * Judge Wood's post-Bepient brief on an issue which 

is not before the court in this case, and which has been fully 

{ik igated, briefed and decided by the :Supreme Court in a prior 

case, in no way furthers Judge Wood's purported interest in the 

"development of a complete record on the pivotal issues in this 

case," nor would it be of "convenience" to this Court. Defendant 

Wood's Motion at 2. 

2. Similarly, this Circuit fully reconciled the application 

  

'As the Justice Department specifically stated in its letter 
to the Secretary of State of Texas, "failure of the Attorney 
General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to 
enjoin the enforcement of such change." See, Brief of Defendant- 
intervenor-appellant Wood, Exhibit B. Moreover, no language in the 
amended Voting Rights Act or in subsequent voting rights case law, 
implies that preclearance by the Justice Department of a voting 
change, creates an inference that no section 2 violation exists. 

2 

 



  

of section 2 and section 5 to judicial elections in Chisom v.   

Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Chisom Vv.   

Roemer, 109 S.Ct. 390 (1988). In a section of its opinion devoted 

exclusively to this issue, a panel of this court rejected the 

distinction offered by the Chisom defendants that section 5 could 

apply to judicial elections, while section 2 could not. 839 F.2d 

at 1064. This Court concluded that "statutory construction, 

consistency, and practicality point inexorably to the conclusion 

that if section 5 applies to the judiciary, section 2 must also 

apply to the judiciary." Id. Judge Wood asserts the same 

arguments for distinguishing the application of sections 2 and 5 

for Judicial elections as offered by the Chisom defendants. 
: 

Defondant~ -intervenor Wood" 's attempt to, instruct this oourt on. . 

the proper review of statutory construction and case law relevant 

to the Wm ing at issue in GChisom is tneppropriite. and unlikely 

to assist this court in its disposition of the case at hand. See 

Wood Brief at pp.4-16 (Chisom panel based its conclusion . . . on 

. a flawed analogy between section 2 and 5" Brief at p. 7); 

(Chisom...ignor[ed] the ordinary meaning of the limiting language 

in section 2(b)" Brief at p.12). 

3. Finally, since the defendants clearly intended to pursue 

their claim on appeal that Chisom was wrongly decided, (See Brief 

on Appeal of Defendant-intervenor Wood at p.15, n.15; Brief of 

State Defendants at p.18, n.9 ), they had a full opportunity to 

brief the issue of the coincident application of section 2 and 

 



  

section 5 prior to oral argument in their briefs and reply briefs 

on appeal. 

WHEREFORE, the Houston Lawyers’ al Association, et ir 

respectfully request that this court deny the motion of Harris 

County District Judge Sharolyn Wood for leave to file an post- 

submission brief. 

    

  

Regpectfully sykmitted, 

  JULIUS LeVONKE AT 
SHERRILYN A. IFILL 

99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

$, New York, New York 10013 

Of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. McDONALD 
- MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 301 Congress Avenue 

. t Suite 2050 
Austin, TX 7870Y 

Dated: May 38, 1990 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 1990, a true 

and correct copy of Houston Lawyers' Association et al.'s 

Memorandum in Opposition to Harris County District Judge Sharolyn 

Wood's Motion for Leave to File a Post-submission Brief was mailed 

to counsel of record in this case by first class United States 

mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett J. Eugene Clements 
Brenda Hall Thompson John E. O'Neill 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang Evelyn V. Keyes 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 Porter & Clements 

4 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 .‘Ddllas, TX 75225 ; 
. . a > Houston, TX 77Q02-2730 

Roland L. Rios : Michael J. Wood 
Southwest Voter Registration . Attorney at Law 

and ‘Education Project , « § 240 Lbuisiana, Suite 200 
201 North St. Mary's Street <"Houston, TX 77002 
Suite 521 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein John L. ‘Hill, Jr. 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 
201 North St. Mary's Street Hill & LaBoon 
Suite 600 3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Houston, TX 77002 

Edward B. Cloutman, III David R. Richards 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Special Counsel 

Cloutman, P.C. 600 West 7th Street 
3301 Elm Street Austin, TX 78701 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

Jim Mattox Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mary F. Keller Hughes & Luce 
Renea Hicks 2800 Momentum Place 
Javier Guajaro 1717 Main Street 
Attorney General's Office Dallas, TX 75201 
Supreme Court Building 
1401 Colorado Street 

7th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701-2548 

 



  

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 

Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 South ‘RR. L. Thornton 

Freeway 
Suite 121 

Pallas, TX 75203 

Darrell Smith 
10999 Interstate Highway 10 
Suite 905 
San Antonio, TX 78230 

Mark H. Dettman 

P.O. Box 2559 

200 West wall 

Midlahd County Courthouse 
2nd Floor 
Midland, TX 79702 

Walter L. Irvin 
5787 South Hampton Road 
Suite 210, Lock Box 122 
Dallas, TX 75232-2255 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

Tom Rugg 
Jefferson County Courthouse 
Beaumont, TX 77701 

John R. Dunne 
Jessica Dunsay Silver 
c/o Hon. Richard Thornburgh 
Attorney ,General of the United 

States Bg : 
United States Department of 
Justice 
Main Justice Building 
10th & Pennsylvania 

Avenue, N.W.’ ; 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Morty y ZS 
  

/ Sherrilyn A. Ifill) 
Attorney for Plaintiff thie 
Appellees, 

Houston Lawyers' Association, et al.