Plaintiff-Intervenors' HLA First Request for Admissions to Defendants; First Set of Expert Witness Interrogatories to Defendants

    Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 
. AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

A A National Office hi: 

May 31, 1989 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Ms. Mary F. Keller 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Office of the Attorney General 

of the State of Texas 
P.O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Counsel: 

Enclosed please find plaintiff-intervenors Houston Lawyers' 
Association First Set of Requests for Admission, and First Set of 
Expert Witness Interrogatories to Defendants, Mattox, Rains, and 
Members of the Judicial Districts Board. 

I look forward to your timely response. 

cc: All counsel 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 800 
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 634 S. Spring Street 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90014 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate (202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075  



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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), et al., - 

PLAINTIFFS, 

No. 88-CA-154 

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

DEFENDANTS. 

PIAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION’S 
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS, 

MATTOX, RAINS AND MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BOARD 

  

  

  

Plaintiff-intervenors, by their attorneys, request that 

defendants pursuant to Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., and within 15 

days after service of this request admit the truth of the 

following facts for purposes of this action and subject to all 

pertinent objections to admissability which may be interposed at 

trial. 

Pursuant to Rule 36, all written answers shall be addressed 

to the matter. Any answer shall be deemed inadequate which 

merely states with regard to any facts set forth herein that they 

are matters of public record and speak for themselves or whihc 

states that any facts set forth have previously been litigated. 

If any objection is made to any of the facts or documents set 

forth herein, the specific reasons for each such objection shall  



  

be stated fully in writing. Each answer to each of the facts and 

doucments set forth shall specifically admit the matter, deny the 

matter or set forth in detail why the answering party cannot 

truthfully admit or deny the matter. 

If defendants qualify their answer or deny only a part of 

the matter of which an admission is requested, defendant shall 

specify which part of the request is true and qualify or deny the 

remainder. If defendants plead lack of information or knowledge 

as a reason for their failure to admit or deny, they must state 

in detail that they have made reasonable inquiry and state 

specifically what inquiries have been made to ascertain the 

requested information or the genuineness of each document. If 

any facts stated herein are deemed by the defendants to be 

incorrect in whole or in part, defendants are requested t supply 

the correct facts to which each such request refers. 

These requests shall be deemed continuing and defendants 

shall be under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as 

required by Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

1. 

Historically, Texas maintained an official policy of racial 

discrimination touching on right of Blacks to participate in the 

electoral process. Graves v. Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704, 725 (W.D¢   

Tex. 1972) (three-judge) aff’d in relevant part sub nom. White v. 
  

  

Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). 

 



  

2. 

Primary elections were officially restricted to whites only 

in Texas, until the Supreme Court outlawed the practice in 1944. 

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944). 
  

3. 

The State of Texas prohibited Blacks from particiapting in 

the Democratic party primary election, until this practice was 

held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Nixon v. Herndon, 
  

273 U.S. 536 (1926). 

4. 

The State of Texas required the payment of a poll tax in 

order to vote until 1968. This requirement was enacted in 1902 

for the purpose of disenfranchising Blacks. United States wv. 
  

State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234, 245 (W.D. Tex. 1966), affirmed   

384 U.S. 155 (1967). 

5. 

Blacks and Mexican-Americans were systematically excluded 

from participation on juries in Texas. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.s 
  

128 (1940). 

 



  

& = - - N » i. nin ls eet ce Bum. amin. 3 tn tn  — PS ~ - - 

According to the court in Graves v. Barnes, “it is not   

unlikely that Texas’ use of multi-member districts, taken in the 

entirety of Texas electoral laws and of Texas history, 

unconstitutionally infringes the voting rights of racial and 

political minorities in all Texas cities that are districted as 

multi-member.” 343 F.Supp at 725-726. 

7. 

According to the Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

the total population of Harris County in 1980 was 2,409,547. 

8. 

According to the Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

the Black population of Harris County for 1980 was 469,290, or 

19.5%. 

9. 

According to the Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

the total voting age population of Harris County in 1980 was 

1,685,081. 

10. 

According to the Dept of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, the 

Black voting age population of Harris County in 1980 was 306,451 

or 18%. 

 



  

11. 

According to the Dept. of Commerce, Texas State Data Center, 

the total population for Harris County in 1987 was 2,782,414. 

12. 

According to the Dept. of Commerce, Texas State Data Center, the 

Black population of Harris County in 1987 was 543,353, or 19.5%. 

13. 

Currently, there are 1,266,655 registered voters in Harris 

County. 

14. 

The inquiry of racially polarized voting, in accordance with 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30   

(1986), is properly focused only on those electoral races in 

which a minority candidate sponsored by a minority group ran in 

the election. Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir.   

1988). 

15. 

Historically, the Texas Constitution required that white and 

Black children attend separate schools (Texas Constitution, Art. 

7, Section 7 (deleted from Texas Constitution in 1954). LULAC v. 
  

Midland Independent School District, 648 F.Supp.596 (W.D. Tex.   

5 

 



1986) (Bunton, J), affirmed 812 F.2d 1494 (5th Cir. 1987). 

16. 

Texas law continued to prohibit Black students and white 

students from attending integrated schools until at least 1969 

(Texas Revised Civil Statutes, art. 2900). See, LULAC v. Midland 
    

Independent School District. 
  

13. 

Until 1967, it was required under Texas law that Blacks 

and whites ride in separate trains and buses (Separate Coach Law, 

Texas Penal Code, Art. 1659). See, LULAC v. Midland Independent   

School District. 
  

18. 

Until 1969, it was required under Texas law that Blacks and 

whites use separate library facilities (Texas Revised Civil 

Statutes, Art. 1688). See, LULAC v. Midland Independent School   

District. 
  

Re ctfully su “a 

  

its L nme 
SHERRILYN A. IFILL 

NAACP Legal Defense & 

6  



Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 301 Congress Avenue 
A Professional Corporation Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 
(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff- 
Intervenors, Houston Lawyers’ 
Association, et al. 

Dated: May 31, 1989 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of May, 1989, a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston 

Lawyers’ Association’s First Request for Admissions to Defendants 

Mattox, Rains and Members of the Judicial Districts Board, was 

mailed to counsel for defendants in this case by overnight 

Federal Express mail, and to all other counsel of record by first 

class United States mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 

Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration 
Education Project 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary’s, Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & 
Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 Elm 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

-over- 

J. Eugene Clements 
John E. 0O’Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
Porter & Clements 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P.O. Bo 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

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

 



  

James Mattox Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mary F. Keller Hughes & Luce 
Renea Hicks 2800 Momentum Place 
Javier Guajardo 1717 Main Street 
Attorney General’s Office Dallas, TX 75201 
P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, TX 78711 

Mond A St   

Easily nA. “Ifi1Y) 
A, ik aay -Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Association 

 



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

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
(LULAC) , 

PLAINTIFFS, 

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

Plaintiff-Intervenors 

v. No. MO-88-CA-154 

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

DEFENDANTS. 

PIAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’ HOUSTON IAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION 
FIRST SET OF EXPERT WITNESS INTERROGATORIES 

TO DEFENDANTS MATTOX, RAINS, AND MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BOARD 

  

  

  

  

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, plaintiffs request that defendants answer fully in 

writing and under oath each of the following interrogatores 

within 15 days after service. These interrogatories shall be 

deemed continuing to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. 26(e). 

In answering each interrogatory, defendants are requested to 

identify separately and in a manner suitable for use in a 

subpoena all sources of information (whether human, documentary, 

or other) and all records maintained by the defendants or by any 

other person or organization on which the defendants relied in 

answering the interrogatories.  



Definitions 
  

1. ”Identify” when referring to a fact or document, means state 

the name and date of the fact or document, the type of document, 

the identity of the author of the document, and the location of 

the document or a copy of the document. 

2. "Identify,” when referring to a person, means state the name, 

race, home and business address and position with any defendant 

or relation to any defendant, if any. 

3. “Document” means the original or identical copy of any 

document (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, 

photographs, phonorecords, audio recordings, and other data 

compilations from which information can be obtained, translated, 

if necessary, by the Respondents through detection services into 

reasonably usuable form) and any tangible things which constitute 

or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. "Relating to” a subject means containing, embodying, 

referring to, comprising, reflecting, explaining, or having a 

logical, factual or causal connection with the subject. 

5. “The Voting Rights Act” means the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

as amended, 42. U.S. C. §1973, et seq. 

INTERROGATORIES 
  

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Have you employed an expert to test,    



  

SRE FR ————a 

analyze or examine any data with regard to this action or in any 

way to give you expert advice regarding this action? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1   

is yes, for each expert, state: 

(a) The expert’s name or other means of identification, 

address and telephone number; 

(b) The expert’s profession or occupation,a dn the field in 

which he/she is allegedly an expert; 

(c) The name or description of the data that was tested, 

analyzed or examined or the nature of the advice given; 

(d) Whether you intend to call the expert as a witness 

during the trial of this action. 

[Answer the following Interrogatories separately for each 

referred to in the preceding Interrogatory, identify the 

by name. ] 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Has the expert referred to   

formal education in his/her field? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If so, state: 
  

(a) The name and address of each school where the 

received special educaton or training in this field; 

(b) The dates when the expert attended each school: 

person 

person 

had a 

expert 

(c) The name or description of each degree the expert 

 



et cS tn ls Sam ve A - - POSS . . a op — as 

  

received, including the date when each was received, and the 

name of the school from which received. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did the expert have other specialized   

training in his/her field? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the answer to the previous Interro-   

gatory is yes, state: 

(a) The type of training the expert received; 

(b) The name and address of the school or place where the 

expert received his/her training; 

(c) The dates when the expert received this training. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Is the expert a member of any pro-   

fessional or trade association in his/her field? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If the answer to the preceding Inter-   

rogatory is yes, state: 

(a) The name of each professional trade association; 

(b) The date the expert became a member; 

(c) The description of each office the expert has held in 

each association. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Has the expert written books, papers,   

or articles on suject in his/her field? 

 



  

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If the answer for the preceding 
  

Interrogatory is yes, for each book, paper and article state: 

(a) Title and subject matter: 

(b) The name and the address of the publisher; 

(c) The date of publication. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Is the expert licensed by any   

governmental authority to practice in his/her field? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: If the answer to the preceding   

Interrogatory is yes, state: 

(a) The designation of the authority by whom the expert was 

licensed; 

(b) The date the expert was licensed; 

(c) The general requirements that the expert had to meet to 

obtain this license; 

(d) How the expert fulfilled these requirements. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: What experience, other than that   

stated above has the expert had in his/her field? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has the expert had any previous   

experience in his/her field which involves problems similar to 

those encountered in this action? 

  

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If so, describe each similar problem 

 



with which the expert has had experience. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: At what address is the expert   

presently employed? 

INTERROGAORY NO. 17: Between what dates has the expert been   

so employed? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: What are the expert’s present duties?   

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: What did the expert test, analyze or   

examine? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: During what dates did the expert make   

such test, analysis, or examination? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: What facts or information were you   

seeking having this test, analysis or examination conducted? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Explain in detail the steps used in   

this test, analysis or examination. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Did anyone assist the expert?   

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: If so, state:      



  

(a) The name and address of each person who gave assistance; 

(b) The type or amount of assistance given; 

(c) The inclusive dates that each person gave such 

assistance... 

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Were any results or conclusions   

reached as a result of this test, analysis or examination? 

  

INTERROGATORY NO. 31: If so, what were the results or 

conclusions? 

INTERROGATORY NO 32: Did your expert submit a report of   

his objective findings? 

  

INTERROGATORY NO. 33: If so, is this report available for 

inspection and copying by plaintiffs? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 34: What is the name and address of the 
  

person who has present custody of this report? 

INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Has this expert ever testified during   

a trial in which the legality or constitutionality of an 

electoral scheme or practice was challenged under the 

Constitution of the United States, or Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, as amended. 

 



  

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 
  

If so, please provide the name, civil 

action number and case citation of each case in which the expert 

has testified, indicating whether he testified for the plaintiffs 

or the defendants. 

ectfully bmjt 

     

  
Wf 

JULIUS . CHAMBERS 

SHERRILYN A. IFILL 

NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 
Matthews & Branscomb 301 Congress Avenue 
A Professional Corpoation Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 
(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Association, 

et al. sf 
May ){, 1989 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of May, 1989, a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston 

Lawyers’ Association’s First Set of Expert Witness Interroga- 

tories to Defendant Mattocks, Rains and Members of the Judicial 

Districts Board, was mailed to counsel of defendants in this case 

by overnight Federal Express mail, and to all other counsel of 

record by first class United States mail, postage pre-paid, as 

follows: 

William L. Garrett J. Eugene Clements 
Brenda Hull Thompson John E. O’Neill 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang Evelyn V. Keys 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 Porter & Clements 
Dallas, TX 75225 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, TX 77002-2730 
Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration Michael J. Wood 

Education Project Attorney at Law 
201 N. St. Mary’s, Suite 521 440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Houston, TX 77002 

Susan Finkelstein Ken Oden 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. Travis County Attorney 
201 N. St. Mary’s, Suite 521 P.O. Box 1748 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Austin, TX 78767 

Edward B. Cloutman, III David R. Richards 
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Special Counsel 

Cloutman, P.C. 600 W. 7th Sst. 
3301 Elm Austin, TX 78701 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

=OvVer- 

 



  

James Mattox Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mary F. Keller Hughes & Luce 
Renea Hicks 2800 Momentum Place 
Javier Guajardo 1717 Main Street 
Attorney General’s office Dallas, TX 75201 
P.O. Box 12548 
Austin, TX 78711 

lik Al 
Sherrj Jina, Ifij 

Wl or inn -Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Association 

  ~~