Plaintiff-Intervenor Houston Lawyer's Association Original Answer to Defendant-Intervenor Wood's Counterclaim; HLA Reply to Wood's Motion to Dismiss

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

TM a SS —— ———— — —————— ——————— — — — — — —— —— —————— A ——— ——— ————— 

EAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 

Plaintiffs, 

Houston Lawyers’ Association, Alice Bonner, 
Weldon Berry, Francis Williams, Rev. William 
Lawson, Deloyd T. Parker, Bennie McGinty, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

vs. No. 88-CA-154 

JAMES MATTOX, Attorney General of the 
State of Texas, et, al., 

Defendants. 
TNL SD _— — A — — T_T —_— T_T. ———— —— T_T —- ————— d— 

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION Ef. AL.’S 
ORIGINAL ANSWER TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD’ 

COUNTERCIATIM 
  

- Defendant-intervenor Wood counterclaims in this act jo
ie

 

on, 

alleging that judicial elections are beyond the gcope of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 and that the Voting Rights Act, as 

amended, is unconstitutional as applied to judicial elections. 

Defendant-intervenor seeks a declaration of her rights under the 

pg - y gr 4 = “ON — vn ~ J ~ 4 c. 7 1} 7 = ~ 
VoLing Rights act ‘of +2700, as amended, as well as costs and 

attorney’s fees. 

Plaintiff-intervenors Houston Lawyers’ Association, ef al. 

answer defendant-intervenor Wood’s counterclaim as follows: 

1; Plaintiff-intervenors admit the allegations included in 

 



thr 
3 

IY 2] 

agi 
wr 

3. Plaintiff-intervenors deny that parag x 

accurate summary of Tex. Gov’t Code §§24.950 and 24.951. 

4 Plaintiff-intervenors 

accurately summarizes the statute cited. 

iN 
Plaintiff-intervenors deny the allegations included in i 

aragraph 1.8 as an 2 
3 

claim. 

3 
-~ 3 
9S SF 1 da tiff-intervenors’ 

Plaintiff-intervenors refer defendant-intervenor Wood I to 

plaintiff-intervenor Houston Lawyers’ Association’ 

[ntervention. 

Ss Complaint 

Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 do not require  



  

11. Plaintiff-intervenors admit the 

responsive pleading. 

Plaintiff-intervenors deny the 

— 3 5 5 paragraph 3.2. 

1 Te -— 3 3 - an = +4. raragrapn 3.3 does not require 

* 

Plaintiff-intervenors deny the pd
 

(6
) 

5 4 TI = 3 om pi om Sc 3 ls, saragraph 4.1 does not require 

- TY? oe +1 £F » +3 1/7. Pialintirf-intervenors deny the 

pd
 

0
 Paragraph 5.1 does not require 

  

does 10ot  requi: 

allegations contained in 

allegations contained in



 
 

 
 
 
 

jo 
Ho) 

o 
() 

“a 
+ 

- 
| 

{6} 
: 

ord 
Q 

rd 
> 

4 
© 

i ®) 
Q 

od 
e 

. 
0
0
 

8 
ig 

le) 
or 

to! 
0 

ro} 
+2 

0) 
Q 

at 
. 

0 
dS 

0) 
c 

Q 
2 

F
a
 

- 
+ 

wo 
(@) 

c 
iy 

0 
) 

(0) 
or 

oo 
ord 

Qu 
r 

a} 
Q 

Te 
[1g 

iN 
0 

© 
0 

a 
o 

is 
+ 

3 
J 

0 
Is 

$
8
.
 

= 
o 

» 
. 

eo 
5 

0 
0 

I) 

0 
he. 

LD 
16} 

0 
CO 

S| 
UA 

= 
o 

Q 
UA 

n
 

+
 

0
 

Q) 
un 

+
 

«rr 
a) 

QQ 
- 

o 
g 

c 
Duct. 

Foc 
5 

l
L
 

oO 
Ie 

O
 

op] 
O
 

i
 

“rf 
=~ 

4 
eo 

or} 
+ 

—- 
Ss 

or 
~~ 

| 
rd 

pt 
1) 

O 
iS) 

Fi 
J) 

ih 
+ 

(@ 
’ 

3
 

—- 
i 

0 
i 

U1 
ol 

A 
Cine 

o) 
om 

tn 
4 

TG 
yg 

Q 
Q 

" 
Q 

(¢) 
0 

i” 
®) 

+
d
 

a
 

3) 
1
 

QQ 
0
 

i 
~ 

0 
rt 

sl 
ESTEE 

©
 

4) 
\ 

fio} 
he 

(] 
n
 

UA 
0
 

0
 

Lo 
* 

Q 
0 

o
H
 

ec 
Q 

+ 
Q 

0) 
Fo 

Bae 
ri 

« 
cl 

Q 
» 

” 
+ 

| 
+) 

C 
+) 

oy 
. 

J
 

0
 

on 
| 

1) 
. 

wl 
oN 

" 
B
L
 

ie 
y 

= 
e 

2 
mg 

° 
Q 

» 
0 

g 
9 

0 
0 

ie 
a 

5 
§ 
g
e
r
)
 

Ly 
Lo 

¥ 
0 

£ 
(OR! 

on 
i 

63] 
0] 

0] 
(o) 

Uv) 
~ 

Q 
or 

F
 

§ 
Ne 

£3 
i 

eA 
BR 

" 
Jo 

| 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

a 
oi 

A 
be 

i 
c 

‘ 
. 

= 
a 

ERECT 
Ea 

O 
D 

Q 
o 

Fou 
Q 

. 
1 

M
o
 

eo 
> 

> 
> 

rd 
+ 

= 
LO 

| 
Q 

3) 
fia 

Yd 
) 

: 
jl 

Sy 
. 

4 
. 

Uy 
U4 

po 
16) 

0 
Q 

Q 
Te 

~ 
Q 

0 
- 

Q 
o
H
 

Wi 
43 

. 
+4) 

! 3 
vr 

3 
@) 

Hl 
et 

cl 
Ne 

« 
~ 

rt 
— 

Q 
0 

D 
ori 

ord 
er 

om 
: "0 

Q 
0 

mn 
ard 

! 
l 

0 
l 

~ 
< 

H 
0 

ri 
Uo 

U4 
z= 

UA 
@) 

ot 
op 

QL 
YA 

U4 
DF 

U4 
8 

0, 
—
 

ri 
=| 

od 
# 

bie 
© 

wl 
— 

A 
4) 

on 
5) 

0“ 
1) 

) 
d 

is} 
A 

a 
. 

co 
on 

gc 
~ 

n 
O
A
D
 

. 
- 

Te! 
orl 

<p 
® 

is 
oN 

oa 
> 

H 
a 

onl 
3 

& 
< 

; 
v 

. 
Ro. 

ft 
A 

RE 
. 

rd 
<<: 

o- 
LO 

oo] 
r= 

Ne) 
oO 

0) 
on 

Hy 
3 

£2 
Tg 

oF 
oF 

(a¥ 
Au 

- 
. 

ie) 
2 

.
 

0) 
0) 

fx] 
= 

iY 
oc 

SN 
o 

“ 
Fe 

. 
- 

RE 
= BI 

O
w
e
d
 

* 
Q
,
 

. 
C
h
 

. 
(on 

N 
lo) 

. 
[of 

cal 
M
 

0
 

( 
3) 

o)) 
i} 

o 
® 

rt 
© 

[QN 
c 

™ 
® 

ae 
of 

Seer! 
el 

= 
: 

+ 
su 

oN 
Sl 

~N 
i. 

S
E
 

~ 
by 

= 
Oo 

0 
OQ 

Au 
on 

go 
(®) 

le) 
e) 

40 
) 

§ 
0, 

io 
© 

© 
B
n
 

: 
Sy 

5 
Q 

4 
Q 

io! 
3 

© 
> 

ge 
o 

io! 
r—{ 

ts} 
vo 

= 
C 

-
 

"wd 

 



3 
t10on, 

ntervenors 
1 

F—-T 

ASsocC 
Fd H 

ss Avenue 

awyers 

219-1900 

Congre 

ca 2050 

on L 

(212) 

301 
Suit 

  

. Counsel Of 

 



  

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

  

——————————————— —— A — — —— _— —— ————— — — ———— _———— —— _- — — — i —— —— — 24 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 

(LULAC)Y, jet.ial., 

Plaintiffs, 

Houston Lawyers’ Association, Alice Bonner 
Weldon Berry, Francis Williams, Rev. William 
Lawson, Deloyd T. Parker, Bennie McGinty, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

VS. 
No. 88-CA-154 

JAMES MATTOX, Attorney General of the 
Stale of Texas, et. al., 

Defendants. 

TT TTT "WHOM tt mr or mew i i te vd A a0 oe: sme tS HA: SS i ds X 

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION ET. AL.’S 
REPLY TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

  

Defendant-intervenor Judge Sharolyn Wood contends that 

plaintiffs’ claims under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as 

amended, and under the Constitution of the United States should 

be dismissed because, in summary: the Voting Rights Act is 

unconstitutional as applied to judicial elections; state judicial 

elections are beyond the scope of the Voting Rights Act and 

because plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims in twelve 

of the fifteen counties where the district judge electoral system 

has been challenged. Defendant-intervenor Wood’s counterclain 

against plaintiff-intervenors Houston Lawyers’ Association, et. 

al., incorporates the same arguments and contentions. 

i 

 



  

Defendant-intervenor Wood’s motion to dismiss based on the 

aforementioned grounds are frivolous, without merit, and evidence 

the defendant-intervenor’s disregard for established precedent in 

this circuit and in the Supreme Court. 

Soon after its enactment in 1965, the Supreme Court 

described the Voting Rights Act as a "rational means to 

effectuate the consitutional prohibition of racial discrimination 

in voting.” South cCarclina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, "32«4   

(19686). Since then, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the 

constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. See e.g,., City of 
  

Bome v, United States 446 U.S. 156, 164 LE4.24 119 (1980) 

(affirming the holding in Katzenbach, that the Act is “consonant 

  

  

with all provisions of the Constitution”); Georgia v. H.S.:, 411 
  

U.8. 7526, 36 LFA. -28 473 (1973) (reaffirming that the Voting 

Rights Act is a permissible exercise of congressional power under 

§2 of the Fifteenth Amendment).?l 

Defendant-intervenors’ argument that the Voting Rights Act, 

as amended, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Constitution because "non-protected Classes," ostensibly white 

Voters, are not "member(s] of a class protected by the Act" (see 

Defendant Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood’s Original 

  

lcontrary to defendant-intervenor Wood’s contention that the Voting Rights Act "violates the principle of separation of powers," (Defendant-intervenor Wood’s Original Answer to Houston Lawyers’ Association), it is well settled that "the separation of powers doctrine requires that the judiciary, rather than 
Congress, must defer" when Congress uses its powers to enforce the Constitution. Jonheg v, City of lubbock, 727 F.24 364,374 
(8th Clip, 1984). 
  

 



  

Answer to Houston Lawyers’ Association at p. 15), demonstrate n 

the defendant-intervenors ignorance of the historical context 

surrounding the passage and enactment of the Voting Rights Act, 

"The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

must be judged with reference to the historical experience which 

it reflects." RKatzenbach, 383 U.S. at 3083.   

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to remedy the widespread, 

deliberate denial of the Fifteenth Amendment rights of minority 

citizens which prevailed throughout this country. See, 
  

Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 309-310. In recognition of the shameful   

history of disenfranchisement of Black and Hispanic citizens 

which, even after passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, 

continues to effect the ability of minority citizens to equally 

participate in the electoral process, both the courts and 

Congress specifically recognized evidence of the existence of 

historical discrimination against minorities touching on the 

right to vote, as an evidentiary element for sustaining a Section 

2 ¢laim under the Act. Sec White Vv. Redgester, 4123 U.S. ‘78s   

(1973) (Supreme Court upheld District Court’s finding of Sec. 2 

violation based in part on history of official discrimination in 

Texas which touched on the rights of Blacks and Mexican-Americans 

to register, vote and participate in the democratic processes) ; 

S. Rep. No 97-417 at p. 28 (19832) (setting out evidence of "the 

extent of any history of official discrimination....that touched 

the right of the members of the minority group to...participate 

in the democratic process" as a typical factor tending to support 

 



  

a claim under Section 2 of the Act). 

The Voting Rights Act, therefore, seeks +0 protect those 

citizens who suffer from the pervasive effects of past and 

present discrimination which inhibit and deny their ability to 

££ participate equally in the political process. "The essence of jo)
 

§2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice or structure 

interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an   

inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters 

  

to elect their preferred representatives." Thornburg v. Gingles, 

478 U.S. 30,47 (1986) (emphasis added). Defendant-intervenor 

Wood’s claim that "restructuring state judicial election 

districts in Harris County, Texas," in order to provide Black 

voters with an equal opportunity to participate in the judicial 

electoral process in Harris County "would unconstitutionally 

deprive Defendant Wood of the equal protection of the laws" is a 

desperate and wholly erroneous reading of the guarantees of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, 

and the historical reality of discrimination in this country. 

Defendant-intervenor Wood chooses to entirely ignore the law 

Cf this circuit when she argues that section 2 of the Voting 7 
wt 

Intervenor Wood’s Original Answer to Houston Lawyers’ Association 

at 13, 17-19, This circuit has expressly held that "section 2 

necessarily embraces judicial elections within its scope." 

Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied   

  

 



  

sub nom. Chisom v. Roemer, 1.8. (Nov. 14, 1988).2 While   

cknowledging the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Chisom, Defendant- 

intervenor Wood insists that "Chisom should not control in the 

case ‘at ‘hand, because "in Chisomnm, the Pifth Circuit 

misinterpreted ... the applicablity of the Voting Rights Act to 

the judiciary." Brief in Support of Defendant Wood’s Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement at 15-16. 

Defendant-intervenor Wood’s view that both the Fifth Circuit and 

the Supreme Court of the United States have failed, where 

ostensibly the defendant-intervenor has suceeded, in correctly 

interpreting the scope of section 2 does not support a valid 

claim upon which this court may grant relief. Defendant- 

intervenor Wood’s argument that judges, unlike legislators, are 

not "representatives" as contemplated in the Voting Rights Act, 

is not a novel one. The Fifth Circuit clearly acknowleged that 

"Judges do not ‘represent’ those who elect them in the same 

context as legislators represent their constituents." Chisom wv. 
  

Edwards, 839 F.2d at 1063 (quoting Martin v. Allain, 658 F. Supp.   

1183, 1200 «(S.D. Miss. 19873). The court determined however, 

that "[Jj]udges, while not ‘representatives’ in the traditional 

sense, do indeed reflect the sentiment of the majority of the 

people as to the individuals they choose to entrust with the 

responsibility of administering the law." id. Contrary to 

defendant-intervenor Wood’s spurious allegation that plaintiffs 
  

2The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has also expressly held 
that section 2 applies to the Judiciary. Mallory v. Eyrich, 839 
F.28 275. {6th Cit, 19388). 

  

 



  

in the case at hand seek the right "to elect race-conscious 

Judges in proportion to their numbers in the gross population," 

(see Brief in Support of Defendant Wood’s Motion to Dismiss and 

Motion for a More Definite Catement at p.1l8),  plaintiff- 

intervenors seek only enforcement of their right ‘to elect 

individuals who they choose to entrust with the administration of 

the law, in an electoral system which does not dilute their 

voting strength. 

Finally, defendant-intervenor Wood’s contention that 

plaintiff-intervenors lack standing is without merit. Plaintiff- 

intervenor Houston Lawyers’ Association have intervened in this 

case on behalf of Black voters in Harris County, Texas. All 

plaintiff-intervenors are residents of Harris County and are 

registered and qualified to vote for district judges in the 

County. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff-intervenor Houston Lawyers’ 

Asgoclation, et. al., respectfully requests that the Court deny 

defendant-intervenor Wood’s Motion to Dismiss. 

 



  

Of Counsel: 

Matthews & Branscomb 

A Professional Corporation 

  

1 CHAMBERS 
FRRILYN A. IFILL 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th 

New York, New York 1001 

(212) 219-1900 

GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 

301 Congress Avenue 

Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 
(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Assocation, 
gr. al. 

Floor 

3 

 



 
 

  

 
 
 
 

  
 
 

  

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

=
 

O 
= 

4) 
4 E+ 

oy 
CL) 

rr 

| 
SH 

(OF 
Q 

br 
ns 

| > 
0 

bd 
. 

Q) 
. 

r— 

P
<
 

Wh 
Wh 

WO 
Wh 

Wh 
WO 

Wh 
WO 

GY 
WY 

WY 
WD 

0) 
0
 

LAY 
RA 

WO) 
WY 

LQ 
WO) 

Ws 
WO 

WG) 
Wh 

tO) 
tO 

WO 
Wh 

Wh 
WY 

TW) 
th 

wh 

aol 
=
 

fx 
O 

1 
{ 

4 
a 

~ 
~ 

’ 
Fry 

Q 
$4 

Oo 
v. 

4 
Fry 

Hl 
8 

Ot 
yr 

ad 
DO 

EA 
0 

J
 

wn 
O 

= 
2 

na 
~ 

to} 
3 

r= 
x
 

Hr 
. 

[£3] 
+
 

i
 

“
 

@) 
x} 

fl 
oO 

|
 

£) 
ri 

u 
O 

in 
> 

I~ 
Hy 

. 
“rf 

18] 
D) 

ad! 
to} 

[a 
i, 

wn 
Yi 

0 
f=] 

CL) 
fxd 

A) 
~ 

fx] 
a 

Q 
wn 

E+ 
E+ 

0p) 
— 

> 
<q 

J 
A
 

= 
~ 

oy 
0d! 

8 
b= 

OU 
4
 

Uv) 
|
 

i
 

>
 

+4 
- 

i 
19) 

| 
EH 

on) 
ah 

-
 

wn 
fay 

——] 
4 

=
 

$=} 
5) 

oe] 
© 

“ 
: 

mM 
a 

= 
bi 

1 
Q 

4 
wd 

bu 
o~ 

hl 
~ 

oc 
4 

fx] 
Ay 

NG 
Q 

0) 
= 

= 
for] 

m 
=
 

0
 

Its 
4
 

t) 
N 

a. 
wn 

[@)) 
3
 

PS) 
1 

Ni 
—
 

tool 
—- 

~ 
C
 

a¥ 
L
W
 

rg 
+ 

~ 
Oo 

S
e
 

BE 
2
D
)
 

1
 

42 
0 

S
0
0
 

E
M
A
 

"rf 
u 

. 
= 
O
H
 

<X 
1 

{ 
a 

0
 

fra 
vd 
I
Z
 

efx) 
B¥ 

O 
> 

Q
u
a
d
 

EH 
O
F
 

m
=
 

= 
fet 

 
    

 
 
 
  



  
 
 

iN 

. 

[1S 1 S Bese 
Ty + 
L 

or 
= 

H Woo d 
Yo grvenor 

. 
Ln 

|
 

a) 
LG 

| 
oN 
09) 

NN 
. 

~~ 
o
O
 

+
 

io 
J
 

oe 
3
 

o
N
 

is 
H
O
R
T
 a 

       
 

ATA I 

 
 

~ 
Foe 

od 
. 

\ 
[
-
 

o
t
 

b
a
 

+ 
Wg 

wd 
i 

to) 
o 

orf 
I. 

1 
- 

> 
k
=
 

\. 

or 
J
y
h
)
 

hy 
ey 

ry 
{ 

" 
1) 

apf 
~ 

P
l
 

O 
oe 

BE 
EE 

. 

ul 
Gg 

O
O
 

rd 
ul 

QS 
vl 

4
 

>
 

{ 
‘ 

r
a
 

~- 

«L 
=a 

Mn 
br] 

a 
D
i
t
 

3 
+
 

or 
£0) 

|
 

w
i
 

O
 

y
 

Un 
= 

wr 
in 

o Sa 
{bret 

h
e
d
 

3 
WJ 

 
 

 
 
 

fl 

s 

— brded 

id 

< 
in 

0) 
~ 

NS 
0 

- 
oC 

r~ 
) 

MG 
>
O
n
 

+ 
=
 

=
n
 

JJ 
h
E
 

wl 
Te 

-
p
 

| 
N 

J 
r
y
 

o
N
 

h
e
 

! 
£ 

Q 
0 

EH 
oe 

9p] 
t
L
)
 

N- 
P
E
,
 

ord 
ri 

hie 
B
r
a
g
 

+ 
rl 

yo 
5 

jo 
Q
 

18] 
s 

(O 
o
r
l
 

L
B
 

7
 

{ 
C
T
)
 

{ 

19) 
pS} 

E
r
 

J
 

—
 

oo) 
T 

te] 
[46] 

ard 
o
o
 

Ay 
OD 

a
 

C0 
lB 

AT