Supplemental Brief of Dallas County Plaintiffs/Appellees Oliver, White, and Tinsley

    # LAW OFFICES OF » 

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, Im 
3301 ELM STREET 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75226-1637 
PHONE (214) 939-9222 
FAX (214) 939-9229 

Board Certified-Labor Law Of Counsel: 
Texas Board of Legal Specialization Roger Albright 

  

Licensed in 
Texas and Louisiana April 19 ’ 1993 

EXPRESS DELIVERY   

Mr. Richard E. Windhorst, Jr. 
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
Room 102 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

RE: LULAC, et al. vs. The Attorney 
General of the State of Texas, et al. 
Case No. 90-8014 

Dear Sir: 

Enclosed please find an original and eight copies of the 
Supplemental Brief of Dallas County Plaintiffs/Appellees Jesse 
Oliver, Joan Winn White and Fred Tinsley in regard to the above 
referenced matter. 

Please file same and return a file marked copy to the 
undersigned in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. 

By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of this 
document to counsel set forth on the Certificate of Service list. 

Yours trul 

    
for Edward B. Cloutman 

/K1lp 
Encl. 

cc: Certificate of Service List 

   



  

   
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

Oo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), ET AL., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Vv. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

  

On Remand From the United States Supreme Court 

  

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF DALLAS COUNTY PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES 
JESSE OLIVER, JOAN WINN WHITE AND FRED TINSLEY 

  

Respectfully submitted, 

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, III 

(Bar No. 044 110 00) 
Law Offices of 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 
(214) 939-9222 
(214) 939-9229 (Telecopier) 

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 
(Bar No. 052 350 00) 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

COUNSEL FOR DALLAS COUNTY 
PLAINTIFFS /APPELLEES JESSE 
OLIVER, JOAN WINN WHITE AND 
FRED TINSLEY  



    
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), ET AL., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Ve 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

  

On Remand From the United States Supreme Court 

  

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF DALLAS COUNTY PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES 
JESSE OLIVER, JOAN WINN WHITE AND FRED TINSLEY 

  

Respectfully submitted, 

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, III 

(Bar No. 044 110 00) 
Law Offices of 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 
(214) 939-9222 
(214) 939-9229 (Telecopier) 

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 
(Bar No. 052 350 00) 

Attorney at Law 
777 South R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

COUNSEL FOR DALLAS COUNTY 
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES JESSE 
OLIVER, JOAN WINN WHITE AND 
FRED TINSLEY 

 



    
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the 

following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this 

case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of 

this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. 

Name 

The League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Council 
#4434 

The League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Council 
#4451 

The League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Council 
(Statewide) 

Christina Moreno 

Aguilla Watson 

James Fuller 

Roland L. Rios 

William L. Garrett 

Brenda Hull Thompson 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 
P.C. 

The Houston Lawyers’ 
Association 

Sherrilyn Ifill 

Matthews & Branscomb 

Jesse Oliver 

Joan Winn White 

Interest 
  

Plaintiff-Appellees 

Plaintiff-Appellees 

Plaintiff-Appellees 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellee 

Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellee 

 



    
Name   

Fred Tinsley 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab 
& Cloutman, P.C. 

E. Brice Cunningham 

James Greenleaf Boyle 

Jim Mattox 

Dan Morales 

George Bayoud 

Thomas R. Phillips 

Michael J. McCormick 

Ron Chapman 

Thomas J. Stovall, Jr. 

James F. Clawson, Jr. 

Joe E. Kelly 

Robert M. Blackman 

Sam M. Paxson 

Weldon Kirk 

Jeff Walker 

Ray D. Anderson 

Joe Spurlock, II 

Renea Hicks 

ii 

Interest 
  

Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff/- 
Intervenor-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff/- 
Intervenor-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff/- 
Intervenor-Appellee 

Counsel for Plaintiff/- 
Intervenor-Appellee 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant- 

Appellants 

 



    

Name 
  

Javier Guajardo 

Leonard Davis 

Sharolyn Wood 

Darrell Frank Smith 

Porter & Clements 

F. Harold Entz 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

David C. Godbey 

Hughes & Luce 

Tom Rickhoff 

Susan D. Reed 

John J. Specia, Jr. 

Sid L. Harle 

Sharon MacRae 

Michael P. Pedan 

Seagal V. Wheatley 

Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 

Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 
Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc. 

Kaufman, Becker, Pullen 
& Reibach, Inc. 

Goldstein, Goldstein 
& Hilley 

iii 

Interest 
  

Counsel for Defendant- 

Appellants 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 

MAL. = 
Edward B. Cloutman, III 
  

 



    

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 

This Court has set this matter for oral argument during the 

week of May 24, 1993 in New Orleans. 

iv 

 



     
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ¢ alle Tein i a wie wi didi 

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT «Un telly 4 ty aly ie AY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS IL RTS YA Se I PS I Ye aE J 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Nair I DR SEEN Ne Se AER ETE, 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

A. Course of Proceedings and Disposition 
in the COUrt BOlOW ov « vie oo ois ‘sia o..0 nisin sv 1m=2 

B. Statement of Facts vi ade wiiel wi a al igi YN gigi 2m3 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT + 4s so sis is os 8s os .8 9 5 3 5 =" o & 3 

ARGUMENT 4 a oo sa so 00 » so wiles o-oifeiin oi nv 0 oo ule eo 3=h 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + «¢ 6.50 0 0 5 oo istfis o'nis a.0 os eo o B=7 

Vv 

 



    

CASES: 

Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
  

  

(1987) 

Williams v. City of Dallas, 734 F.Supp. 
  

1387-97 (N.D. Tex. 

STATUTES: 

1990) 

Voting Rights Act, Section 2 

MISCELLANEOUS: 

Rule 52(a), F.R.C.P. 

vi 

1317, 

Page(s) 

L J L J 1 

L J] NM 3 

i 4 

. 2,4 

LJ LJ 3 

 



    

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), ET AL., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Ve 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

  

On Remand From the United States Supreme Court 

  

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF DALLAS COUNTY PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES 
JESSE OLIVER, JOAN WINN WHITE AND FRED TINSLEY 

  

Appellees Jesse Oliver, Joan Winn White and Fred Tinsley in 

response to the Court’s letter of August 6, 1991 offer this 

supplemental brief. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 
  

A. Course of Proceedings 
and Disposition in the Court Below 

The course of proceedings is set out in this Court’s 

previous three opinions and by the Supreme Court in HLA. 

This Court heard arguments in this cause in November of 1991 

and issued its opinion supporting plaintiffs’ claims on January 

27, 1993. The Court on its own motion granted rehearing en banc. 

 



    

984 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The State of Texas 
  

advised this Court of reaching a tentative settlement with 

plaintiffs by notices dated March 26, 1993 and April 14, 1993. 

Defendants/intervenors Entz and Wood have moved to realign the 

State of Texas with plaintiffs and further to assert their 

interests as those of the State. 

B. S8tatement of Facts 

The statement of facts is set out in plaintiffs/intervenors’ 

briefs of March 2, 1990 and October 7, 1991. 

This Court’s panel opinion correctly analyzed and deferred to 

the trial court’s factual analysis regarding Dallas County vote 

dilution (Slip op. at 22-55; 118-131). This Court held that the 

trial court was not clearly erroneous in its findings regarding 

Dallas County. 

The dissenting opinion would hold otherwise, boldly asserting 

that black voter choice when guided by party affiliation was not 

protected by Section 2. The dissent flatly misstated the 

intervenors/plaintiffs’ evidence in asserting that evidence 

gleaned from non-partisan races was not discussed in appellate 

briefs nor did such evidence show racial polarization. See Brief 

of Plaintiff/Intervenor Oliver of October 7, 1991, p. 5; Brief of 

Plaintiff /Intervenor Oliver of February 28, 1990 at p. 6. Indeed, 

this evidence is uncontradicted in the record and shows decided 

polarization when no partisan issue could effect the electoral 

outcome. The dissent dismisses the existence of appeals to race 

 



    

in county-wide elections; finding "no harm, no foul" because one 

black candidate survived the racism of his opponent. In short, 

the dissent invades the province of the trier of fact in order to 

gain its objective. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

The summary of argument is set out in plaintiffs/intervenors’ 

brief of Octboer 7, 1991. 

ARGUMENT 
  

Plaintiffs/intervenors (Dallas County) reurge by reference 

all arguments advanced in their three earlier briefs filed with 

this Court in the spring and summer of 1990, as well as that of 

October, 1991. Those arguments will not be repeated here. 

The majority panel opinion correctly followed the strictures 

of Rule 52(a), F.R.C.P., and Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 

273 (1987) in affirming the district court’s findings regarding 

Dallas County. The dissent disregards this standard, substituting 

its judgment on relevance of evidence and on significance of 

unrebutted expert witness testimony in the record. 

Plainly stated, if the dissenting views were adopted, little 

need exists for trial courts nor for Rule 52, F.R.C.P., for review 

would amount to trial de novo. Review does not, however, and the 

findings of the district court cannot be so lightly disregarded. 

X. There is evidence that the judicial choices of the 

black electorate of Dallas County are most often defeated by white 

vote (Slip op. at 119-20). 

 



    

2. It may by that black voter take some keys as to 

this choice from party affiliation, but it is a choice neverthe- 

less, and causation is not part of the polarization equation (TR. 

2:172-74; 205-06; 240-41; 248-49). 

3. There is evidence that racial polarization exists, 

not simply partisan affiliation, which the dissent seeks to 

disregard (TR. 3:19-26, PI-Dallas X. 25). Williams v. City of 
  

Dallas, 734 F.Supp. 1317, 1387-97 (N.D. Tex. 1990) underscores the 

existence of racial polarization in Dallas in a non-partisan 

electoral context. These are the game precincts and presumably 
  

the same voters contributing to the polarization in judicial 

elections. 

4. There is evidence of racial appeals in Dallas 

County elections, as recently as a couple of years before trial of 

this case. 

5. There is evidence to support every finding affirmed 

by the last panel decision in this case, notwithstanding the 

dissent’s retrial of Dallas County’s issues. 

This Court should not be guided into a wholesale retrial of 

this case merely because of the strong feelings applicable to 

voting rights issues nor because of the highly public and 

political nature of these claims (political not in the sense of 

party affiliation, but rather in terms of judicial intervention in 

election schemes via the Voting Rights Act). In short, this Court 

should decline to become a trial court of twelve or thirteen 

 



    

members in order to reach some "desirous" political end. 

This Court should affirm the trial court and panel decision 

of January 27, 1993 in all respects pertinent to Dallas County. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ge 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
(Bar No. 044 110 00) 
Law Offices of 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 
(214) 939-9222 

(214) 939-9229 (Telecopier) 

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument has been served upon the below-listed counsel 

of record, by placing same in the United States Mail, 

prepaid, on this the / 
  

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Ms. Mary F. Kel 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 

postage 

day of April, 1993: 

ler 

Special Asst. Attorney General 
P.O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

 



Mr. William L. Garrett 
Ms. Brenda Hull Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang, P.C. 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration 

& Education Project 
Milam Building, Suite 1024 
115 E. Travis Street 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary’s 
Suite 521 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson St., 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Walker & Satterthwaite 
7800 N. Mopac 
Suite 215 
Austin, Texas 78759 

Mr. J. Eugene Clements 
Mr. John E. O’Neill 
Porter & Clements 
3500 NCNB Center 

P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744  



  

   
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mr. David C. Godbey 
Mr. Bobby M. Rubarts 
Ms. Esther R. Rosenblum 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. Jim Boyle 
Law Offices of Jim Boyle 
801 Congress Avenue 

Suie 250 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Wheatley & Sharpe 
Frost Bank Tower, Suite 1650 
100 W. Houston 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. John L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill 

& LaBoon 

3300 Texas Commerce Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Ms. Jessica Dunsay Silver 
U.S. Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66078 

Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 

Mr. Joseph D. Jamail 
Attorney at Law 
500 Dallas, Suite 3434 
Houston, Texas 77002 

ode. .r 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III