Plaintiffs' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice of Department of Justice Letter of Objection

    LAW OFFICES OF 

TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC. 
201 NORTH ST. MARY'S ST.. SUITE 600 

SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 78205 

(512) 222-2478 

September 7, 1989 

John D. Neil 
Deputy Clerk 
P. O. Box 10708 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: LULAC et al v Mattox et al 
Civil Action No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

I am enclosing an original and two copies of 1) Plaintiffs’ Second Deposition Notice and Subpoena Duces Tecum (Delbert Taebel) and 2) Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice of Department of Justice Letters of Objection. Could you please file them at 
your convenience? 

Also, I am enclosing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Could you please mark one of the copies with your filemark and return it to me? 

In advance, thank you for your help. 

erely 

Susan Finkelstein 
Staff Attorney 

Si    

   

federal express 

xc: all counsel of record 
(certified) 

 



  

5) all documents relied upon by the witness in preparing his 

analysis and/or expert opinion concerning the election system for 

district judges in the counties at issue in this case. 

Respectfully submitted: 

GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
A Partnership of Professional 
Corporations 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
8300 Douglas #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 
(214)369-1952 
LEAD COUNSEL 

ROLANDO L. RIOS 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
201 N. St. Mary’s #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 
(512)222-2102 

SUSAN FINKELSTEIN 
STAFF ATTORNEY 
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC. 
201 N. St. Mary's #600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 
(512)222-2478 

ei 

  

BY: & Clg Leite t lai 

/ ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I, Susan Finkelstein, do hereby certify that a true and 

correct copy of Deposition Notice and Subpoena Duces Tecum has been 

 



  

mailed via certified mail with correct postage to: 

ATTORNEY 
  

Plaintiff - Intervenors 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB & 

CLOUTMAN, P. C. 
3301 Elm 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 
214/939-9222 FAX: 214/939-9229 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy, Suite 121 
Dallas, TX 75203 
214/428-3793 

Julius Levonne Chambers 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational 

Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson St., 16th floor 
New York, NY 10013 
212/219-1900 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 
301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 
Austin, TX 78701 
512/320-5055 

Defendants 
  

Jim Mattox 
Mary F. Keller 
Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajardo 
Attorney General’s Office 
P. O. Box 12548 
Austin, TX 78711 
512/463-2085 

REPRESENTING 

  

Jesse Oliver 

Joan Winn White 

Fred Tinsley 

Jesse Oliver 
Joan Winn White 
Fred Tinsley 

Houston Lawyers Assn. 
Francis Williams 
Rev. William Lawson 

Houston Lawyers Assn. 
Francis Williams 
Rev. William Lawson 
Texas Legislative 

Black Caucus 

All Defendants 

 



  

Defendant-Intervenors 
  

J. Eugene Clements 
E. O'Neill 
Evelyn V. Keys 
PORTER & CLEMENTS 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 77002-2730 
713/226-0600 

Darrell Smith 
Attorney at Law 
10999 Interstate Highway 10, 
Suite 905 
San Antonio, TX 78230 
512/641-9944 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 
713/228-5105 

Mark H. Dettman 
County Attorney 
P. 0. Box 2559 
Midland, TX 79702 
915/688-1084 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P. O. Box 1748 
Austin, TX 78767 
512/473-9415 

David R. Richards 
Special Counsel 
600 W. 7th St. 
Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main St. 
Dallas, TX 75201 
214/939-5500 

Judge Sharolyn Wood 
of Harris County 

Judge Sharolyn Wood 
of Harris County 

Judge Sharolyn Wood 
of Harris County 

Midland County & 
District Judges 

Travis County District 
Judges 

Travis County District 
Judges 

Judge Harold Entz 
of Dallas County 

 



  

each at the correct address on this 7th day of September, 1989. 

vi rE i 
ns wetie Ld = 
  

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF / 

 



  

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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 
NO. MO-88-CA-154 

MATTOX, et al., 

* 
F 

¥ 
¥ 

* 
%* 

* 
* 

* 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTERS OF 

OBJECTION 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial 

notice of the following letters of objection that the Department 

of Justice has made pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Both letters concern Bexar County. Another letter of objection concerning Bexar County is included in Plaintiffs’ First Request 

for Judicial Notice of Department of Justice Letters of 

Objection.F.R.Ev. 201: 

BEXAR COUNTY 

B-2 letter of April 2, 1976 

B-3 letter of August 17, 1979 

 



  

Respectfully submitted: 

GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
A Partnership of Professional 
Corporations 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
8300 Douglas #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 
(214)369-1952 
LEAD COUNSEL 

ROLANDO L. RIOS 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
201 N. St. Mary's #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 
(512)222-2102 

SUSAN FINKELSTEIN 
STAFF ATTORNEY 
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC. 
201 N. St. Mary's #600 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 
(512)222-2478 

al ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I, Susan Finkelstein, do hereby certify that a true and 

correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Request for Judicial 

Notice of Department of Justice Letters of Objection has been 

mailed via certified mail with correct postage to: 

 



  

ATTORNEY 
REPRESENTING 

  

Plaintiff - Intervenors 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III Jesse Oliver MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB & Joan Winn White CLOUTMAN, P. C. Fred Tinsley 3301 Elm 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 
214/939-9222 FAX: 214/939-9229 

E. Brice Cunningham Jesse Oliver Attorney at Law Joan Winn White 777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy., Suite 121 Fred Tinsley Dallas, TX 75203 
214/428-3793 

Julius Levonne Chambers Houston Lawyers Assn. Sherrilyn A. Ifill Francis Williams NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Rev. William Lawson Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson St., 16th floor 
New York, NY 10013 
212/219-1900 

  

Gabrielle K. McDonald Houston Lawyers Assn. MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB Francis Williams 301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 Rev. William Lawson Austin, TX 78701 Texas Legislative 512/320-5055 Black Caucus 

Defendants 

Jim Mattox 
All Defendants Mary F. Keller 

Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajardo 
Attorney General's Office 
P. O. Box 12548 | 
Austin, TX 78711 
512/463-2085 

Defendant-Intervenors 
  

J. Eugene Clements Judge Sharolyn Wood E. O'Neill 
of Harris County Evelyn V. Keys 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 77002-2730 
“713/226-0600 

 



  

Darrell Smith Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law of Harris County 10999 Interstate Highway 10, 
Suite 905 
San Antonio, TX 78230 
512/641-9944 

Michael J. Wood Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law of Harris County 440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 
713/228-5105 

Mark H. Dettman Midland County & County Attorney District Judges P. O. Box 2559 
Midland, TX 79702 
915/688-1084 

Ken Oden 
Travis County District Travis County Attorney Judges P. O. Box 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 
512/473-9415 

David R. Richards Travis County District .Special Counsel Judges 600 W. 7th St. 
Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. Judge Harold Entz HUGHES & LUCE 
of Dallas County 2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main St. 
Dallas, TX 75201 
214/939-5500 

each at the correct address on this 7th day of September, 1989. 

    
    ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTI 

  

FF 

 



202 724 

Ja 0505/1399 iD CIVIL RIGHTS D1v AT. 
A 

© I,  — 
  

APRA TE 

Meo Jeunes Me Perker Clty httornay 
City of San Antonio Posi: Office Dow 9066 San Ang ‘onio, Texng 78285 
Loa: Ne. Pazlioys: 

  
  

"Tals is In reference to the Rovenber, 1974, city 
Chanter A Amendments, clisngayg in Gang deslima ited polling 
pleces, and 23 annesnaty LONa to the C Clty of san Antonio, 
Texas fubinitted £0 tho Attorney Caneral Pursuant to 
Seaton 5 of the Voting Dishes het of 1265, ag ariended, 
row abnisgion « was comnleted on February Ly 1976, 

  
he httorngy Gonovny dog aterpoge Any 

nt Le the pelliag nloce LAODHeS or the City Fadments, loweves:, ‘cel a Se oonalniiiey 
(¢ Wehr oun Bh beotion 5 of 30 Vo 5 oaLEhGs Act 
Crptaleiy provideg Eni the faq Lae Actor ney 
Umass) oo cijeat dos wor A bn “Caveat Judiaing 
aciien se Clim uly, Cnfvkcament; ! these changes, 

  
AY) examining the annexationn submittod tes 

Cent bh of Che Voting Riziitp Act, iit 4s Iacunbe; 
KOs thio Lttornay Ce Gaara] to determing whatlicr hy 
smaenssiong, clther dy PULPpOsSe op eifect, resulp in 
Voting diserinination Lalas wacial or 3s WGUACe 
minoriedeg. Cur Aroper econscrn ig not with che 
validity of ¢h “anesations an pueh but with tha 
changes A voting waleh Proceed from. tham. 

- DOJ Letter of Ohiaction:s m Bevan Co. 

No. B-2 (Apr.2, 1976) —— 

    
4! PAIS =p pases nao hanlole Bt Sol PY 

Perromas y     

 



rr mr me en i me en 

TT TSS mr oo te ot tw ry ke i es ee ae 

09-25/1359 (i: 13 CIVIL RIGHTS DIV paJ 

7 
Ne 

ong 

  

"2 

With réspect to Sap Antonio specifically, we note “that “the population of the City prior to the annexations here under submission, in November, 1972, was 53,1% Mexican-American, 36% white-Anglo, and 8.8% biack and + other races, The City's nine-member governing council is elected at-large, with numbered poste and a majority requirement, In November of 1974, a proposition to "amend the City Chaveer tn Provide for a eyrtam of ward Lepresentation was defeated by the City electorate, However, our examination of election results by precincts indicates the Proposition was favored overwhelmingly in Predominantly Mexican~American and black Precincts, 

  

  

  
    

  

Facts available to us show that the annexations under submission expanded the City by 65 square miles {a 25% increase) and 51,417 Persons, approximately three-fourths of whom were white~Anglo, Oty is 51.17 Mexican-American, 40,47, white-Anglo, and 
isto 8:57 black and cther races, Thus, after tho acaition of 

FIRE. the substantial and predominantly whitoesAnglo Fepulacicn involved in several of these 23 annexations the Pro- portional strength of Mexicon-Amerisnng necessarily has \ been recuced, even though Mexican-Americans 8Cill are a bave majority of the Fopulation., It is ous under - standing that the present City Couneil ig cemposed of two Mexican~American members, one black, and six white Anglos, ; 

  
Tho enlarges 

We have considered carefully all the information submitted, along with pertinent Census data and infor mation and comments from other interestod parties, On the basis of our review, the Attorney General will not object to 10 of the “hnexations submitted, 1/ As to   
   



09-05-1989 14 CIVIL RIGHTS DIV DOJ 202 724 6° P.86 

“up, ’ iit 
; ) 

2.)     
&, 

LY 

NY, Wie AY 
¢ LA oo 

‘these our analysis shows that they involve uninhabited 
areas or populations the effect of which would be : 
de minmus or not adverse to minority voting strength, 
However, with regard to the other 13 annexations 2/ we 
cannot conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, 
that they, when coupled with an at-large,majoxrity vote, 
numbered post system of City elections, in which racial~ 
ethnic bloc voting exists, do not have the effect of 
abridging the »ight to vote of affected minorities in 
San Antonio. Cf, Citv of Richmond v, United States, 
376 F. Supp. 1344 (D, D.C. 1974), 422 U.S. 358 £1965), 
City of Petersburo v, United States, 334 F. Supp. 1.021 
(DaD,C. 1972), aff'd 410 0.8. S62 (1973). Accordingly, 
I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an 
objection to those 13 annexations. 

  

  

  
  

IL would emphasize that this objection relates only 
to the voting changes occasioned by the annexaticns, As 
the Court in the Richmond and Pebersburs cases, funya 
have indicated, one way to remedy this sihtnatien wou 
be to adopt a system of fairly drawn single~member wa 
Should that occur the Attorney General wiil recont icex 
the matter upon receipt of that informaticn, : 

[4 

> 
A 

lq 
AT ds, 

Of course, as provided by Section 5, you have an 
alternative of instituting an action in the United States 
District Court for the Dist ict of Columbisz for a declapa- 
tory judgment that the annexzations do not have the 
purpose and will not have the effect of denying or 
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color 
or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in 
Section 4(f) (2) of the Voting Rights Act,   : : ~ Sincerely, 

3. Stanley Pottinger 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 

—
 

 



\ 

United States Department of Justice 
WASHINGTON « D.C. 20630 

  

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY OF NERAL 

Mr. G. V. Jackson, Jr, AUG 1 T 1979 Office of the City Clerk 
City of San Antania 
P. O. Box 9066 
San Antonio, Texas 78285   
Dear Mr, Jackson; 

This is in reference to the polling place location for Precinct 205 for the April 7, 1979 municipal election In San Antonio, Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, Your submission was completed on June 18, 1979. 

on the campus, 

Under Section 5 the submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the voting change was not adopted with a discriminatory purpose  } or effect, See Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976); Wilkes County v. United States, 450 F. Supp. 1171 (D.D.C. 1978), affirmed U.S. Law Week 3391 (Dec. 4, 1978) (No. 78-76). See also 28 C.F.R, 5L.19. The facts described above lead us to conclude that you have not sustained your burden of demonstrating that the polling place change for Precinct 205 did not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against Mexican- American voters in District 6 at the April 7, 1979 election. Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to that location, 

    

  

  

  

  

= DOJ Letter of Objection - Bexar Co, 

No. B-3 (Aug.17, 1979) 
        

 



   ‘" 039-85/1983 ®: CIVIL RIGHTS DIV DOJ 202 724 ba] P.83 
\, rr 

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 
you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia that this change 
has neither the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. In addition, the Procedures 
for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.21(b) and (c), 51.23, 
and 51.24) permit you to request the Attorney General to reconsider 
the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawn or the judgment 
from the District of Columbia Court obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make the change In polling place location 
legally unenforceable, 

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility to enforce 
the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within twenty days of your 
recelpt of this letter of the course of action the City of San Antonio plans 
to take with respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerning 
this letter, please feel free to call the Director of the Section 5 
Unit Mr, John P. MacCoon at 202-724-7439, 

Sincerely, 

(ol Z = / 

( JOHN E. HUERTA 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division