Rule 60(a) Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake; Proposed Order

    THE ATTORYEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

JIM RAATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL December 14 1989 
bd 

U.S. District Clerk 

P.O. Box 10708 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: LULAC #4434, et al. v. Mattox, et al., 

Civil Action, No. MO-88-CA-154 
$.: 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are the 

original and one copy of the State Defendants’ Rule 60(a) Motion to 
Correct Clerical Mistake and a proposed Order. 

  

Sincerely, 

{ f j } gy 

Nr (Sn 

Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

cc Counsel of Record 

F122 / AG = 2100 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2518 

 



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 

VS. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. CO
N 

LO
N 

CO
R 

ON
 

CO
R 

LO
N 

LO
R 

RULE 60(a) MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL MISTAKE 

The State Defendants hereby move the Court, pursuant to Rule 60(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to correct a clerical mistake in its 

Order of November 27, 1989. Inthe last sentence of. the dast full 

paragraph on the second page of that order, the Court amended Finding of 

Fact 20.a (concerning Travis County) on page 49 of its November 8th 

decision to include the sentence: "All three .elections analyzed were County 

Court at Law Primary Elections." This statement is inconsistent with the 

uncontested evidence and appears to be the result of an inadvertant 

mistake. Two of the elections analyzed by Dr. Brischetto were county court 

at law primary elections; however, one (the McCown/Gallardo race) was a 

district court primary election. All involved the 1988 Democratic primary. 

Therefore, a more accurate substitute would be: "All: three “elections 

analyzed were 1988 Democratic Primary elections, two of which were for 

county court at law positions and one of which was for a district court 

position." 

Based upon the foregoing matter, the State Defendants urge the Court 

to grant this motion and correct the clerical mistake in its November 27th 

order. 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
Hirst Assistant Attorney General 

Te Ct vy. abo 
TE 
Special Assistant Attorney Generel 

  

JAVIER GUAJARDO 

‘ Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, ‘Texas 78711-2548 

(512)--463-2085 

Attorneys For State Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 14th day of December, 1989, I sent a copy of 

the foregoing document by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, 
to each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, Southwest 

Voter Registration & Education Project, 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521, San 

Antonio, Texas 73205; Sherrilyn A. Mill, NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 

10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, 

Texas 78701; Edward B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, 

P.C.. 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugenes. Clements, Porter 

& Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite ‘3500, Houston, Texas 77002- 2730: and 

Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 Main 

Street, "Dallas, Texas 75201. 

/ 
|} 

  

Renea Hicks 

57. 

 



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., § 

Plaintiffs, § 

S 
VS. § Civil Action No. 

$ MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., § 

Defendants. § 

ORDER 

On this day cam s before the Court the State Defendants’ Rule 60 (a) 

Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake. The motion is GRANTED. The last 

sentence of the last full paragraph on the second page of the Court's Order 

of November 27, 1989, is corrected to read as follows: "All three elections 

analyzed were 1988 Democratic Primary elections, two of which were for 

county court at law positions and one of which was for a district court 

position.” 

SIGNED and ENTERED this day of December, 1989. 

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE