Plaintiffs' Original Answer to Defendant-Intervenor Wood's Counterclaim

    LAW OFFICES OF 

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

SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 78205 
(512) 222-2478 

April 7, 1989 

John D. Neil 
Deputy United States Clerk 
200 East Wall Street 
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 Plaintiffs’ Original 
Answer to Defenadnt-Intervenor Wood’s Counterclaim. Could you 
please file this Original Answer at your convenience? 

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

In advance, thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely yours, 

HY Zz, e 

LA Leche ly ll. 
Susan Finkelstein 
Staff Attorney 

RRR: P 045 547 032 

Xc: Rolando L. Rios 

William Garrett 
Edward Cloutman RRR: P 045 547 020 
E. Brice Cunninghagm RRR: P 045 547 021 

Sherrilyn Ifill RRR: P 045 547 022 
Gabrielle McDonald RRR: P 045 547 023 
Renea Hicks RRR: P 045 547 024 
Evelyn V. Keys RRR: P 045 547 025 
Darrell Smith RRR: P 045 547 026 
Michael J. Wood RRR: P 045 547 027 
Mark H. Dettman RRR: P 045 547 028 
Ken Oden RRR: P 045 547 029 
David R. Richards RRR: P 045 547 030 
Robert H. Mow RRR: P 045 547 031 
David Hall 

Po Mis, SG 

 



  

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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

MATTOX, et al., 

* 
3%
 

* 
oF
 

oF
 

oF
 

* 
* 

oF
 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER TO 
DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD'S COUNTERCLAIM 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

1, This litigation concerns claims that the existing system 

of electing district court judges in various Texas counties 

violates the United States constitution and Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended. Defendant-Intervenor Wood has filed a 

counterclaim that requests that the Court declare that the Voting 

Rights Act does not apply to the judiciary and/or is 

unconstitutional as applied to the judiciary. Further, she seeks 

attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs LULAC, LULAC #4434, LULAC 

#4451, MORENO, WATSON, FULLER and PLUMMER answer Defendant- 

Intervenor Wood's Counterclaim as follows!: 

  

'Wood's counterclaim begins with Paragraph 6.1 of her Answer and Counterclaim. Paragraph 6.1 incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1.1 through 5.10. Plaintiffs refer to each Paragraph by its original numbering, ie, 1.1, 1.2 etc., to avoid confusion. 

1 

 



  

2. Plaintiffs admit the allegations included in Paragraphs 

l.1 through 1.3. 

3. Plaintiffs admit that Paragraphs 1.4 through 1.6 

accurately restate the statutes cited. 

4. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 1.7 

except to the extent that it 1)states that the State of Texas seeks 

an efficient, prompt and fundamentally fair system of 

administration of justice and 2) quotes accurately from Plaintiffs’ 

pleadings. 

5. In response to Paragraph 1.8, Plaintiffs admit that they 

claim that the election system for district court judges in various 

counties in Texas violates the United States constitution and 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They further admit that the 

target counties are widely spread over the State of Texas. They 

deny, however, that their complaint "is essentially that when the 

target counties ... are considered as an aggregate, the 

proportional representation of black and/or Hispanic judges in 

those counties is less than the proportion of minorities in the 

gross population of those aggregated counties." 

6. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of Paragraph 1.9. 

2. Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 do not require a responsive 

pleading. 

8. Plaintiffs admit that the Court has jurisdiction over 

this dispute, as alleged in Paragraph 2.3. 

9. Paragraphs 2.4 through 2.6 do not require a responsive 

pleading. 

 



  

10. Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

2.7 through 2.9. 

11. Paragraph 3.1 does not require a responsive pleading. 

12. Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

3.2 and 3.3. Further, they claim that Defendant-Intervenor Wood 

does not have standing to raise these issues because Plaintiffs 

reside in Harris County, where she resides and presides. 

13. Paragraph 4.1 does not require a responsive pleading. 

14. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 

15. Paragraph 5.1 does not require a responsive pleading. 

16. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 

17. Plaintiffs admit that Paragraph 5.3 accurately reflects 

the state of the law. 

18. Plaintiffs admit that the first two sentences of 

Paragraph 5.4 accurately reflect the state of the law. They deny, 

however, the last sentence of Paragraph 5.4. 

19. Plaintiffs admit the first sentence of Paragraph 5.5 and 

deny the remainder of that Paragraph. 

20. Plaintiffs admit that Paragraph 5.6 accurately reflects 

the state of the law. 

21. Plaintiffs admit the first sentence of Paragraph 5.7 but 

deny the remainder of that paragraph. 

22. Plaintiffs cannot respond to Paragraph 5.8 because it is 

too vague to allow a response. They admit, however, that "only a 

 



  

protected minority which is geographically insular and politically 

cohesive and votes as a racial bloc against a white majority, which 

also votes as a racial bloc and usually manages to defeat 

candidates preferred by the protected minority" may prevail in a 

claim pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

23. Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 

5.9 and 5.10. 

24. Paragraph 6.1 does not require a responsive pleading. 

25. In Paragraph 6.2, Wood seeks a declaration of her rights 

pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. Although this Paragraph 

requires no responsive pleading, Plaintiffs request that the Court 

declare that the Voting Rights Act does not violate Wood's rights. 

26. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 

8.3. 

27. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 

6.4. 

28. Plaintiffs deny the allegations included in Paragraph 

8:5. 

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court deny all of the 

relief that Defendant-Intervenor Wood requests. 

Dated: April 7, 1989 

 



  

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 

  

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

/ 3 Wan 

a rn Lil Le gin 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Original Answer to Defendant-intervenor 

Wood’s Counterclaim 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. O. 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 April, 1989. 

penmmmap— 

rd 3 
ry <f Zc Aa 7 < Ke V/s (e¢ £ —   

ol ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF