Brief of Amicus Curiae Jefferson County District Judges

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

et al, 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

versus 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al, 

Defendants-Appellants 

  

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 

JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGES 

  

Tom Maness, District Attorney 
Tom Rugg, Asst. Dist. Attorney 
Jefferson County, Texas 
Jefferson County Courthouse 
Beaumont, Texas 77701 

409-835-8550 

October 10, 1991 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

et al, 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

versus 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al, 

Defendants-Appellants 

  

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 

JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGES 

  

Tom Maness, District Attorney 
Tom Rugg, Asst. Dist. Attorney 
Jefferson County, Texas 
Jefferson County Courthouse 
Beaumont, Texas 77701 
409-835-8550 

October 10, 1991  



STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 
  

The District Judges of Jefferson County that are filing 

this brief represent seven of the eight current presiding 

judicial officers in one of the nine counties affected by the 

District Court's order of January 2, 1990, directing that 

non-partisan subdistrict elections be held as an interim 

remedy for alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 

U.s.C. Section 1973. Although the District Judges of 

Jefferson County are not parties to this suit, they are in a 

unique position to offer aid to this Court in considering the 

issues specifically applicable to Jefferson County. 

Amicus seeks to show that the District Court as a matter 

of law improperly balanced the compelling interest of the 

State of Texas in maintaining the present electoral system in 

Jefferson County against the claimed interest of minorities 

in a subdistrict election scheme. Amicus will first 

demonstrate that the Plaintiff's evidence failed as a matter 

of law to establish any violation of the Voting Rights Act, 

and in that regard seeks to bring additional evidence to the 

Court's attention by way of judicial notice regarding both 

the primary and general elections held in Jefferson County 

since the time of the trial of this case. It is the position 

of Amicus that the evidence before the District Court at the 

time of trial was .Jdnsufficient as a matter of law to  



establish a violation, and that the subsequent election 

results establish conclusively that the District Court's 

holding was clearly erroneous in those portions of his 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which he found a 
  

violation in Jefferson County. It necessarily follows that 

the District Court improperly weighed the interests of 

minorities in having subdistrict elections, and Amicus also 

will demonstrate that insufficient consideration was given to 

the State's compelling interest in maintaining the current 

system, including such factors as giving all citizens within 

Jefferson County the opportunity to vote for the judges that 

they may appear before, maintaining the ability to have 

specialized courts, and reducing as much as possible the 

level of political pressure and undue influence on elected 

judges. 

In light of the positions held by the District Judges, 

they have a strong and direct interest in the issues 

presented in this case. As Amicus, they have a special 

vantage point from which to the assist the Court in reviewing 

important fact issues relating to Jefferson County. 

 



    

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  

Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae . 

Table Of Contents + ein + + +" 4 is 

Table of Athorities . . « 5 ise oo siiiie 

Summary of Argument =... «ic Te eo ke 

ATQUNBIIE vv +00 nui 

IntYoRUCE ION. viv iiss 0 otal Ge 

I. The District Court's Findings as to Jefferson 
County Were Clearly Erroneous Because the 
Appellees Failed to Present Sufficient Proof 
of Any Violation of the Voting Rights Act . 

A. The Proof Failed to Establish the Third 
478 U.S. Element of Thornburg v. Gingles, 

  

SOR (AOBOY se ei vr ki ve vi 

B. The Proof Failed to Establish the Totality 
of the Circumstances Test of Monroe v. City 
of Woodville, 881 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir.   

CONCLUSION. 

EXHIBIT Ail tv tie sin v's +. oa to Tellin nile in 

  

 



    

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
  

CASES: 

Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 
470 U.S. 564 (1985) . + sv & 
  

City of Port Arthur v. United States, 
  

517 F..80pp. 937 .{D.D.C. 1981). « . o  enwite 4" 14 

Houston Lawyers Association v.Attorney General, 
  

501 U.8.. , 115 L.Fd.24 379 (1991) 

Monroe v. City of Woodville, 
881 F.24 564 (1985) . vo + +". 
  

Thornburg v. Gingles, 
478 U.S. 30 (1986)  . .¥. 
  

Zimmer v. McKeithen , 
  

485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973). 

STATUTES: 
  

Voting Rights Act of 1965, as 

OTHER: 

amended. 

Senate Report No. 97-417 (1982) 

5 18316 

6,8,12,13 

«6,7,8,13,15 

13,14,15,17 

 



    

NO. 90-8014 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) 

et al 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

versus 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al, 

Defendants-Appellants 

  

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 

JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGES 

  

In compliance with Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 29 of this Court, the 

District Judges of Jefferson County offer this as their 

Amicus Curiae brief. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 
  

As a matter of law, the District Court improperly 

weighed the interest of minorities to have subdistrict 

elections in Jefferson County because the evidence failed to 

 



establish any violation of the Voting Rights Act in Jefferson 

County. The Appellees failed to meet their burden as to the 

  

third element of Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), 

that the white majority usually votes as a block to defeat 

the black preferred candidate. Further, the record shows 

that the District Court failed to make the type of analysis 

required under the "totality of the circumstances" test as to 

Jefferson County. Monroe v. City of Woodville, 881 F.2d 1327 
  

(1990). For these reasons, the District Court's findings as 

to Jefferson County were clearly erroneous. 

ARGUMENT 
  

Amicus urges that this lawsuit was prosecuted against 

the nine named individual counties within the State of Texas, 

and that the case against each county should be considered on 

its own separate merits. Although Amicus believes that 

Appellees totally failed to prove their case and the District 

Court's holding was clearly erroneous as to all of the 

counties involved, the case presented regarding Jefferson 

County was especially lacking. This brief is filed 

specifically for the purpose of asking that the District 

Court's findings against Jefferson County be reversed, and to 

request that Jefferson County be dismissed from this lawsuit.  



THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AS TO JEFFERSON COUNTY WERE 
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE APPELLEES FAILED TO PRESENT 
SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ANY VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS 
ACT 

A. The Proof Failed to Establish The Third Element 

of Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) 
  

The findings of the District Court in this case were 

clearly erroneous as to Jefferson County for several reasons. 

First, the Appellees presented insufficient evidence to 

support their burden of proof on the third element of the 

three part test required by Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 
  

(1986) , that the white majority usually votes sufficiently as 

a blocito defeat the minority preferred candidate. 

The District Court acknowledged the three part test of 

Gingles in his findings, and further recognized that failure 

to prove any of these "threshold" requirements would result 

in a failure to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act. See District Court's Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, page 82. There is no doubt that the first 

element of Gingles was satisfied, that a sufficiently large 

and geographically compact minority population exists to 

constitute a single member district. Although the evidence as 

to the second part of the test, that there is political 

cohesion on the part of minority voters, was not strong, 

Amicus concedes for purposes of this brief that it was  



    

sufficient to support the findings of the District Court. 

As this Court has noted, however, simply proving "bloc" 

voting on occasions by minority and white voters is not 

sufficient to establish a violation of Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act. "[Tlhe specific Thornburg threshold 
  

inquiry" is "whether the white bloc vote is legally 

significant, i.e., whether it usually operates to defeat the 

black candidates." Monroe v. City of Woodville, 881 F.2d at 
  

1333. This analysis requires a more "focused attack" and 

close examination of the evidence, and "[i]f white bloc 

voting to a legally significantly degree is not proven, 
  

minority voters have not established that the challenged 

electoral structure interferes with their ability to elect 

their preferred candidates." Id. (emphasis added). 

The evidence presented on this third element of Gingles 

as it relates to Jefferson County came entirely from two 

sources. John Paul Davis, a black lawyer who was previously 

defeated by a white opponent in a primary election for a 

county court at law position, testified in essence that based 

on his experience in losing that election, black candidates 

can not win an election against a white opponent and are 

therefore intimidated from running for election. See 

District Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 
  

54-59, 74. Amicus urges this Court to take judicial notice 

 



  

   
of the fact that since the trial of this case, John Paul 

Davis was elected in a county vote as a judge of the county 

court at law of Jefferson County by defeating two white 

opponents in the Democratic Primary and another white 

opponent in the general election. See Amicus' motion asking 

this Court to take judicial notice filed contemporaneously 

with this brief and Exhibit "A" attached to this brief, a 

certified copy of the 1990 election returns for Jefferson 

County. Although Amicus recognizes that this evidence was not 

before the District Court at the time of trial, the great 

significance placed on the testimony of John Paul Davis by 

the District Court in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
  

of Law justifies this request that judicial notice should be 

taken of the subsequent election experience of now Judge 

Davis. Otherwise, a manifest injustice would occur if such a 

momentous decision as the destruction of the Texas judicial 

selection system, chosen by the citizens of the state and in 

operation in Jefferson County for over one hundred years, was 

made on incomplete and inaccurate information. This is 

especially true in light of the fact that the only data 

available to the District Court at the time of the trial was 

ten year old census figures. Although Amicus strongly urges 

that the state of the record before this Court is such that 

reversal and dismissal of Jefferson County is mandated, it is 

 



    

requested that at a minimum this matter should be remanded to 

the District Court for consideration of the new evidence 

raised by the recent election results, more of which is 

discussed below. 

The second and only other source of proof presented by 

Appellees against Jefferson County on the third element of 

the Gingles test was expert testimony of Dr. Brischetto, 

whose analysis of Jefferson County's voting patterns was done 

by the "multivariate regression analysis" method. Dr. 

Brischetto's curious approach to this analysis was to not 

examine any district court elections at all. Instead, using 

ten year old census data, he reviewed only two county 

elections and several selected justice of the peace 

elections. One of the two county elections analyzed was the 

1988 Democratic Presidential Primary in which the black 

candidate, Jesse Jackson, received a majority of the total 

votes cast. Incredibly, Dr. Brischetto placed no 

significance on that election result. The second, and only 

other county election analyzed, was the previously mentioned 

primary election in which John Paul Davis was defeated by a 

white opponent. As also previously noted, Judge Davis has 

since been elected by defeating three white opponents. The 

justice of the peace elections analyzed by Dr. Brischetto 

consisted primarily of situations in which only white 

10 

 



  

   
candidates were in primaries, and one of those white 

candidates, designated by Dr. Brischetto as the "black 

preferred" candidate, was defeated. The quality of that 

evidence is so poor and unreliable that it simply cannot form 

a sufficient basis upon which this Court should sanction the 

abolition of the existing system of electing judges that has 

existed for over a hundred years in Jefferson County. Amicus 

further urges this Court to take judicial notice of several 

other results from the 1990 elections in Jefferson County, 

including a county majority vote received by a black 

candidate for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Morris 

Overstreet, against two white opponents (even though that 

black candidate was defeated in the state election). 

Further, in the election for Attorney General of Texas, Dan 

Morales, an Hispanic candidate, received almost 60% of the 

county vote against a white opponent in the Democratic 

Primary and 70% of the vote against a white opponent in the 

general election. These election results from 1990 

graphically demonstrate how dubious the evidence presented by 

Appellees' expert was, and that the proof fell far short of 

what would be required to establish the third part of the 

Gingles test. 

It is of course axiomatic that this Court should not 

place itself in the position of simply substituting its own 

11 

 



judgement for that of the District Court in analyzing factual 

determinations based on evidence presented at trial. 

However, this Court has a duty to examine carefully the 

nature and quality of that evidence to determine if it is so 

lacking as to be insufficient as a matter of law. This is 

especially true in light of the nature of the test set out in 

Gingles, and the large disruption in the current system of 

state government that will be mandated by the District 

Court's Order. Amicus is asking only that this Court apply 

the definition of "clearly erroneous" to the finding of the 

District Court, that "although there is evidence to support 

it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with 

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564,573, 
  

105 S.Ct. 1504,1511, 84 L.Ed.2d. 518 (1985). Based on that 

standard, it is clear that the evidence is legally 

insufficient and that the District Court's findings were 

clearly erroneous regarding the third part of the Gingles 

test. The case should therefore be reversed and dismissed on 

that basis alone. 

B. The Proof Failed to Establish the Totality of 
Circumstances Test of Monroe v. City of 

Woodville, 881 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1990). 
  

  

Even if by some stretch of the proof presented at trial 

it could be determined that the third element of Gingles had  



been established, there is a further requirement that 

Appellees clearly failed to prove as required by this Court 

in Monroe v. City of Woodville, 881 F.2d4. 1327 (5th Cir. 
  

1990). The record is entirely insufficient to establish that 

the District Court made a "searching and practical 

evaluation" of the "totality of the circumstances." Id. at 

1334-1335. As the District Court acknowledged in his 

findings, Appellees do not win by simply proving the 

"threshold" elements of Gingles, which Amicus strongly urges 

was not done in this case. They have the further burden of 

proving that Appellees do not have an equal opportunity to 

participate in the political process or elect candidates of 

their choice. Id.; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 44. 
  

In examining the totality of the circumstances as to all 

the counties involved in this lawsuit, the District Court 

made a general review of the nine objective factors set out 

in Senate Report No. 97-417 (1982), which are based in large 

part on the Zimmer factors. See District Court Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 83-84. Amicus believes it is 

quite apparent from a review of the District Court's findings 

as written that very little actual attention was given to 

Jefferson County individually, and the primary focus was on 

larger counties. This is significant, because each county is 

a separate party to this lawsuit, and each deserves close 

13  



individual scrutiny as to the evidence against it. 

In making his findings as to the totality of the 

circumstances, the District Court made only two specific 

findings as to Jefferson County. First, the Court found some 

history of past discrimination against minorities in areas 

of education and access to the democratic system, referring 

to the ten year old case of City of Port Arthur v. United 
  

States, 517 F. Supp. 987 (D.D.C. 1981). See District Court's 

  

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, p. 71. Second, the 

District Court again stated that no black lawyer "has run for 

the office of District Court Judge in Jefferson County," and 

again referred to John Paul Davis' deposition testimony that 

black lawyers were fearful of defeat. See District Court's 

  

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 74. Amicus urges 

this Court to take judicial notice of yet another extremely 

significant result of the 1990 election, the election of a 

black district judge, Judge Donald Floyd. The election of 

both Judge Floyd, although unopposed by any other candidate, 

and Judge Davis himself, against three white opponents, casts 

serious doubt on the validity of the Court's finding that 

blacks do not have an equal opportunity to participate in the 

system or elect candidates of their choice. Although Amicus 

concedes that there is no minimum number of such Zimmer type 

factors that must be examined by District Courts in analyzing 

14  



  

   

the totality of the circumstances, and that there is no 

mandatory weight that one factor is to be given over another, 

it is clear that a cursory or superficial review of the 

factors such as occurred in this case will not suffice. What 

is required is a "searching, practical evaluation," and "an 

intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the 

contested electoral mechanism." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45. That 

type of examination clearly did not occur in this case as to 

Jefferson County. 

The Court gave little or no significance to the varied 

compelling state interests proven at trial in maintaining the 

current system of electing district judges concurrent with 

their jurisdictional boundaries. Amicus agrees with and 

adopts the arguments advanced on this issue by the various 

Appellants' briefs filed previously in this appeal. The issue 

before a District Court in reviewing the totality of the 

circumstances is not simply a matter of balancing the 

compelling interest of the state with the other Zimmer 

factors. The District Court is charged with the 

responsibility of making the type of careful and practical 

examination of all the circumstances involved to determine if 

the valid and important state interests in the current system 

justify the existing method of judicial selection. Houston 

Lawyers Association, et al, v. Attorney General of Texas, 501 
  

15 

 



      

U.S. <;, 115 L.B4.24 379 (1991). 

Although there is an initial fact question to be made by 

the District Court concerning whether there are valid 

compelling state interests in the current system, there is no 

serious question that the evidence presented at trial 

established that there are such interests. The interest of 

having all citizens of a county vote for all the district 

judges in the same county is apparent. If citizens are 

limited to voting for one judge, the chances are much greater 

that the citizen will appear before a district judge for 

which that citizen had no vote. While this type of 

arrangement is permitted by Texas for justice of the peace 

elections, it is understandable that a different policy would 

be desired for district courts that handle much more 

significant and important cases. Further, the current system 

permits the use of specialty courts that allow judges to 

develop expertise in handling certain types of cases. The 

state has a compelling interest in maintaining such courts, 

and Jefferson County has organized its district courts in 

that manner for many years. It is obvious that much 

difficulty would arise in having specialty courts assigned to 

subdistricts, since only citizens residing in that district 

could vote for the judge of that specialty court. In other 

words, citizens of one subdistrict would elect the judge of 

16 

 



the family law district court and citizens of another would 

select the criminal district judge. 

Other legitimate compelling state interests are apparent 

on the face of the record. Judges elected from smaller 

districts are quite obviously subject to more potential 

pressure from constituents, and the state has a legitimate 

interest in reducing that pressure as much as possible in the 

election of the important position of district judge. Again, 

smaller districts may be permissible for justice of the peace 

elections, but the serious nature of the cases handled in the 

district courts merits the state's interest in maintaining 

larger districts for those courts. 

Although there is the initial fact question of whether 

such compelling interests exist, there remains the legal 

issue for this Court of whether the District Court properly 

analyzed the Zimmer factors as a whole, and whether his 

findings were clearly erroneous. The record before this Court 

simply does not support the District Court's finding that the 

Plaintiffs/Appellees do not have an equal opportunity to 

participate in the political process or elect candidates of 

their choice in Jefferson County. The two factors cited by 

the District Court as relating to Jefferson County constitute 

only a superficial analysis at best, and the evidence 

presented by Appellees at trial was wholly inadequate to meet 

17  



    

their burden of proof on this critical issue. 

CONCLUSION 

The District Court erred by finding that the at large 

election system in Jefferson County violates the Voting 

Rights Act. The evidence before the District Court at the 

time of the trial was clearly insufficient, and the 

additional primary and general election results since that 

time conclusively establish that the Appellees failed in 

their burden of proof. Amicus respectfully urges this Court 

to reverse the Findings and Order of the District Court, and 

to render judgment dismissing Jefferson County. “In the 

alternative, Amicus respectfully requests that this case be 

remanded for further fact findings in. “light of the 1990 

elections. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

Tom Maness, BISEeIcy Attorney 

By: Tom Rugg, A Dist. Atty. 

Jefferson County Courthouse 

Beaumont, Texas 77701 

Counsel For Amicus 

18 

 



  

   

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this 77 say of October, 1991, 
a true and correct copy of this brief was mailed to counsel 
of record in this case by first class mail, postage paid. 

Caine 
Tom Rugg 

Counsel For 

  

19 

 



    

EXHIBIT A 

RESULTS OF 1990 ELECTIONS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 

20 

 



  

| 

Prec ine 

Label, 

wile] 590 

Cs Rolo rem TU 0 ON 0 A 
«hi() EN FYE mgmt: Xr OL 

ts Counted - TOTAL 

ndlsteced Voters - TOTAL 

I Zijiote Last ~ TOTAL 

STRAIGHT FaRTY 

REF - REFUBLICAN FORTY 

UNT TED 

REF ~~ PHIL 

Lig 

L.TR 

To 

[HE 

IE 

To 

wi, REP 

- UEMOCRATIC PARTY 

LIBERTARIAN PARTY 
% il 3 L] LJ 1] " " 

STATES SEMATOR 

GRAM . 

HUGH FARMER 

Gary JOHNSON 

Toa " q A " “ 

RESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 
nol = MAURY MEYERS " . 
DER. = Wali BROOKS . . 

Tolal 

GIVERMOR 

REF = CLAYTON WILLIAMS 
HEA = AMM W. RICHARDS 
dB = JEFF DATELL ; 

Total . ” ¥ . 

LIDUTENANT GOVERNOR 

ry 

In T EE 

REF ROB MOSEBACHER 
DES. — BOR BULLOCK 
LIE 

Tol 

PUORNEY 

EF 
[HE I 
Re: 

Tar 

2 INP TRE. 
REF = 
LEM - 
LIE = 

Tot 

REF = 

LEM 

bo XR 
CC goulahe 

vr CY 

TOM OWENS 

él 

Ge MEAL 

vo Bao PBUSTER ARROW 

DAN MORALES “ . 

RAYE. DITTHAR:, 
él “ - - » 

LER OF FPUELIC ACCOUNTS 
WARREN G. HARDING, JR. 
JOHN SHARP . " . " 
WILi.ZaK E. "BILL" GRISHANM 

» ét 1 n L - u un EL] " - 

TREASURER 

KAY EAILEY HUTCHISON . 
MIKKI VAN HIGHTOWER 
SUZAMME LOVE 

a ” 

Combe red Re: spd bdr san 

PANT OWE SN EID NT 
Ab hn 

Count 

, 482 

ee y 202 

21,718 
40,288 
1,901 

63, P07 

21.30% 

41 3 258 

1,420 
7d 2 

18,081 
43,294 

bb 

bo y HES i 

14,835 
42,079 

0 [60 Rnd Bond} 
Loo }] PAN Po) 

40, 647 

: ELE 1 

Bat Lite 

Fercent 

100.00 

154 
80. am 

1.12 
100.00 

5055 

48.04 

1.41 

100.00 

i » an 

ba 7 hi 

100.00 

HH. 98 
63.04 

wn 7 

100.00 

HE. 09 

b4 05 
Lh) _ 

/ ER 

100.00 

22.00 

69.45 

1.55 
100.00 

24.358 

70.80 

4.82 
100.00 

= £4 
a MA 

Le A 4 

2.063 

100.00 

m
e
 

r
r
 

e
r
 

e
e
e
.
 

- 
a
)
 

~ 
BH
 

W
E
E
]
 

- 
' 

L
a
r
d
 

‘a
o 

i 
«
Y
r
 

A 
a
l
e
 5 

AR
 

R
E
T
R
 

E  



i" 

Zl 

COMMISSIONER OF 

{ 

AN ) T Li) Af 

CHLEF 

 IBTICE, 

LIAISE TL 

IE, COURT OF 

JUBE , COURT OF 

JOBE, COURT OF 

Cy F073 LL. 

TERT IBY HNO 17220  Combyined fogulan 

GENERAL ELECTION, 
. MOVEMBER &, 1990 

THE GENERAL LAMD 

BILBREATH " " " . 

LEM GARRY MAURO . " " " . " 
LIN FYOHARD Co TIOMALTISOH 

Pada . . . . . " 

REP: i» WES 

NER "OF AGRICUL TURE 

PERRY . J ; 

DEV om ol SESH IGN TOWER " 

LIE ~ RKAREM A. TEGTREYER 

Total ; . . " . 

REF «RIK 

COMMISSIONER 

BOUL TER . . 

LE ROBERT (ROR) KRUEGER 

IB =~ Co We STEINBRECHER 

Total - . . ® 

REF ~ HEAL 

JUSTICE = SUPREME COURT 

REF =. JOH FPHYLLIFS 

DEM —- O8LAR FH. MALUZY 

Tata ” . ’ 

INTICE, SUPREME COURY, PLACE 

REF - JOHMLCDRMHYM 

DEM ~~ GEME KELLY 

Total - " “ 

SUPREME COURT, PLACE 

REF - CHARLES BEN HOWEL lL. 

DEM —- BOR GAMPMAGE . " 

Total v " . % " 

CRIMIMAL AFFEALS, FLACE 

REF '~- JOBEPKH A. CJOEY UEUAKY 

LEM — FRANK MALONEY . " 

Toad id " . . " . . 

OLE, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, 

PEF HIER 8. HITZ 

DEM ~ BAM HOUSTON CLINTON 

Total ‘ h ‘ . 

FLACE 

CRIMIMAL 

DER ~ BILL WHITE 

LIB ~ Carli CAL 

Total ; . . 

AFFEALS, FLACE 

CRIMINAL AFFEALS, FLACE 
REF — DAVID BERCHELFANN . “ wim 
BEM — CHARLES “F. XCHARLIES BAIRD 

Total . 

OFFICE 

andl 

JEFFERSON COUNTY, 
Alsen tee 

TEXAS 

Count 

L590 
gq red y bd ¥ 4 a 

1 9 7 = = 

ol ,118 

‘1 he) V] 1 é w= 

45,755 

3 Ul & 7 a 

Hd + 591 

14 Son 

q4,701 

IE 

6l., 027 

=6 9 694 

01, 951 

18,762 
26, 05% 
%4, 821 

Fee 2 
2allots 

”y\ 

Fercent 

Lh Nga} 
Lon dos "od 

74.90 
so TN, 4. Thad 
Lint), 

100.00 

bud 

71.04 

2url 

100.00 

Sh. 45 
100.00 

20. 44 

69.54 

100.00 

20.75 

69.20 

100.00 

gh, = 
tdi moe wl Le 

67 48 

100.00 

Ba.16 

11.84 
1.00.00 

A WE 4 

bb.98 

100.00  



        

~ARILY DISTRICT JUDGE, 

00 TEE Nl EN 

: GENERAL ELECTION, JEFFERSON CQUMTY, 

: MIVENRBER 4&6, 1290 

TEXAS 

Count 

SYTIGE, , SOIR TLE Rinna APPEALS, PLACE 5 

REF. » LL OITS E.  STLRMNG " . ‘ “ " wa l8lu lb 

BEM -MORaTe . OVERGTREETY . ‘ x 5 . 2,08 

Tela 

BISTRILY 7 MEMBER, STATE BOARD DF EDUCATION, 

OE - CAaROLYM HONEA CRAWFORD " " iB 1,215 

Total . » " . " " " " " ME BO 

SIATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT. 20 

DEM ~~ CRRTIL BOILEAL . . " x . TART 

T {) Xx al 1 “ » LJ Ll] » LL LJ had uw “ " = Y on & 7 

STATE REFREBSEMTATIVE, DISTRICT 21 

GEM ~ MARK W. STILES A " ” - " 

Total . » . ” ! " " : " . 

8,01% 

+015 

CIATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 22 

LEW. = Ol PRICE. " " . " " " “ 12788 

Total ’ . " " . " " " " " wR SZ80 

WYATE REPRESENTATIVE, LISTRICT 23 

LE - FRAME COLLAZD, Ff . . " ‘ 19,624 

Tolal . . " . . " " . . . i 1? 624 

IEF JUBTICE, "MINTH COURT OF LAFPEALS DISTRILT 

DEM — ROMALYD LL. HWSMKEER 20. ” 47 , 299 

Total ; . , " " " " " “ " wi Bl, NPY 

DISTRICT JUDGE, S8TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

DEP - MIKE BRALFORD " y a ; . 4%, 245 

Tota) . ” ! : . " " " “ : wo, BAS 

SISTRILVY JURGE + 17280" JINIC TAL DISTRICT 

DEM. DONALD J. FLOYD v 

Total " 

LISTRICTY JUDGE, 252M SUNT CIA. DIBTRICYT 
DEM ~ LEONARD “Jd. BIRLIN, JR ‘ “ " - 48,1 

Total " . . " “ " “ . ” . “8, 1 

DISTRICT JURGE, 229TH JUDICIALLDISTRICT 

LEM -~ ROBERTIWALRER ii 0 Lo, am me 
ge en INTER i a a EN ie | 

SUIDGE , CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT 

DEA “LARRY BIST " . " " " n " « 48,461 

Total . " 5 . - . " . . " - 48,461 

HA7TH WJUDIOIAL DISTRICT 

DEM =udaPiEs PM. AJIT FARRLS 46,769 

T Cl % <t ] M " " n » " " " n " " £} & ] 7 & Q 

Cowmbinesd Regular and Absentee 

Fae 

Ballobs 

Fercent 

o oe 

) 

100.00 
100.00 

100,00 
100.00 

1.00.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

300.00 

100.00 

1.00.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 
100.00



    

FINAL. TOTAL a a “4 il 
21 L27A0 hav 1 PY Combined Regular and absentee Ballots il 

GEMERAL Let TION, JEFFERSOM COUNTY, TEXAN | 

. NOVENEER &, 1990 fi! 
Count FParcent : 

  

Pr 

“RIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, JEFFERSDM CDUMTY 
LEN ~ TOR ANESS SE 0 Er, ala rg 47, B50 100.00 
eer Oc TOT Sat VE 47, B50 100.00 

COUNTY JUDGE. 

LEM - RICHARD F. LEBLANC, JR . n " « BE OGY 100.00 

Total n . " " ; " . . " " i AZ O62 0000 

      
JANGE, COUNTY COURT AT LAW, MO. 1 

LEM - ALFRED SG. GERSON " " ‘ " ow Ad, 816 100.00 

Total . " . " . " " “ " . - 44,616 100.00 

) JUDGE, COUNTY COURT AT LAW, MNO. 
DEM ~ HAROLD FLESSALA CORT Ss ET 100.00 

Toba ow oie me eel LL AS, 100.00 
  

JJIUGE, COUNTY COURT AT LAW, NO. 

REF - DAYLEE WIBGINS - " . . . " nw ode 040 41.29 

LEM - JOHM FAUL DAVIS ‘ " ! " ; nna 56. 61 

Total " v . ; . " “ " " ish 1 TW 100.00 

DISTRICY CLERK 

DEM ~ JOHN SS. APPLEAAN " " “ . - 86,4132 130.00 

Total - . " " " . ’ . . . - 46,413 100.00 
    

CIUNTY CLERK 

LER -4.0L1TA RAMOS . . " . " " 8S, HO 100.00 

Total " . p . v " " " " . « 47,4603 100.00 

CAUMTY TREASURER 

DEM - LINDA FAREMT RORIMSON " v " « 45,478 100.00 

Total . » " " " " “ " " “hy G78 100.00       
JIUNTY SURVEYOR 

DEM = (UIY 6. STOMECTAHER ls  Wiiv wl wu 24,891 100.00 
Total RG in a LR he ay any 100.00 

CIUNTY (LOMMISSIONER, PRECINCT NO. 2 

LEM - TARR: . DDMIMOLUE " " . . SAR, PS 100.00 

Total . . . . . . . . " " - 12,974 100.00 

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, FRECINCT NO. 4 
DEN EN WOORE "ie, th, LL le Bae 100.00 
EX A Me CE a i al 100.00 a   ww JBTILE OF THE PEACE, FRECIHET 3, FLACE 7 

JEM: = HOG IMYLS. " " . " " " ious RE 100.00 

73% 100.00 

/ 

Toteél ' ‘ . " . . " n " " NEL 

  LUSTICE OF THE FEACE, PRECINCT 7, PLACE 2 
DEE JOHN Wa. CIOMNNY) KNOWLES WT ENT 100.00 

YTabatogi el BR es La, Le YEE, Te an 100.00 it   
 



  

    , SIAR. TOTAL 
eye a 

ayn sidl &=NMov-1990 Combined Regular and dbsentee Ballots 

d ; GENERAL ELECTION, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAR 

» lets ve NOVEMBER &, 1990 
Count Fercent 

JUSTICE OF THE FEACE, PRECINCT 

DEFi - A. E. HALTER " " " . " “ . hn 100.00 

Total . “ " v " " " . . : " VL 100.00 

JISTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 4 

LEM - JACK CRAVY " . ‘a " " " . 1,534 100.00 

Total v . " " . . " " " " . 1.504, 0.00.00 

JUSTICE OF THE FEACE, FRECIMNMCT 4A : 

DEM - ROMALD C. RBRENMOIT " " " . 8 - adh4 100.00 

Total . - " . . . . . " . . S64 100.00 

JJSTICE OF THE FEACE, FRECIMCT 7 

LEM - JOHN A. BORNE L171 . " " . n v i134 065 100.00 

Total , n » . “ “ . " " " ow dimly OOS 100.00 

FROFOSESD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

FOR Taree gi RE ah EY, 089 Slunls 
ABHLNET al EW ST A, at ea IR.79 

Terba Valle a0, alm RTL eT TG RE 100.00 

I 
We, the undersigned, certify that the above results 

are true ‘and correct. 

LOLITA RAMOS, County Clerk 

Jefferson County, Texas 

y 
| 

Signe | 

  

  

  

November 6, 1990 General Election — Jefferson County, Texas 

  

  
 



  

pepper ETT CRA TC FORTY Fave } 

ny rEny 1G qesmepEEEEroOO Combined Regular and Absentee Ballots 

  

Sh LENO CRAPITE=PARPY PRIMARY ELEC TL OR™ 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 
  

  

70 da a MARCH. 18, 1990, 

a vrs 3 " n. 2 i ”... I] Qo wn       

4 Gm Count. Cpe arc en Whig CARER 

100.00 
  precincts Counted 1 

tigallots Cast’ « TOTAL .. : - 5 . : A iad tw 

  Fy SRS 

[UNITED STATES SENATOR 
Bl HUBH FARRER » coon Fon Sas sis hdr iy dle QAR 

    

3 79.05 ai : 

Wi 50 Ea 
  19! HARLEY SCHLANGEK: ARTETA ; " ~A.,427 

eo Total . " - wii " " ’ . " WE 

1   ALS. REFRES SENTATINE, LISTRIGCL 2 

100.00 

  

PTAC BROOMEA. while won wie saimioe 31,078 
ih JACK BROOKSHIRE . : ei " [] ow. ..a » 10,665 

vel : . i 
wr =r Jota) I > im 0 n | § : y . un » i= 4 B31, 74% 

4. 40 

=. =ab0 So G
n 

  

ZIGOVERNOR 
i As 

  TY ANH RICHARDS. escent settee eemsteeiereseeetem de E35] 
0 MARKPMHITE LL, el Cae wl ed BedAD 
2% RAY RACHAEL . ee a Te th oe See RA 
Ze EARL HOLMES. SACL RR LU WS AIT i sy 

16.82 ° 
Qu 7&5 

G42 
  

i THEREGS: HEARH=HATNES » vr «=o mg + ux. 208 
A STANLEY ADAMS ve ih Der te TA Weel ele (3.68 

0.8% 

0.51 
45.87 

    etd IPL IATTOX o.com u “ iia AAR JY VSEU— USS SW a 

25 { 

Be; 
—] 

Total rl - - : =" : LJ 2 LJ an w LN pr o B2e18%. Si 100,00 
  ULIEUTENANT.. GOVERNOR bet 

l ROR BRUL. LOCK ” a [] - » L] “ [J " LJ 2d y 740 

c Total aa " - " " " « u " 224,740 

100.00 
100.00 

  debe di | os 

2 ATTORMEY GENERAL . § nail 
59 JOHM ODAN: he Sa] 00a 

  

  

ali 

  2 DAN_MORALES I a 
134] Total . . X J . : : 

[ 
se, 

4 COMPTROLLER | QF. -FUBLIC ACCOUNIS 

    

24.095 

SH4Z 
100.00 

  

1 JUHN SHARE « wp th a rs A B00 SVG) 
i Total ie ® - - i. ; . w » at od “ 20,166 

100.007 
100.00 

    

STATE TREASURER 
4 

a NIHR] YAM HIGHTOWER #,0 «0 W800 "0 0" & $eT0) 
Al 

4éb.,04 

WAL 
  

«A en tABEN, ERIEHI rroopstr eotosreiserstuntriismsnssin SS 
50 ARNANBO GUTTERREZ Jo ait try aie 3a Th, G, 549 

Eh TOW BOWDEN fal sag 0 ra, ST ae VU 5 907 
ga Total ou oo on arti ey i a is ABE 100.00" 

E04 
    28.00 

    

5 

COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE 

100.00 
    Ye BARRY MAURD. ut ceseeseini reitbmiomibommim got rg , 21.0 

4 Todbatida iw. Wolf fiii, "igh Wl lie 10 1D 

Ld 

100.00 

  

| 
| in as Te Ts 

| 
| 

  

  
cere a= = SY Cams 

             



FlNal., TOTAL LEFOURAT LL FAR Vey a 

wy 1Sa:14 13-Mar-1990 Combined Regular and Absentee Ballots 

: DEMOCRATIC PARTY FRIMARY ELECTION 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

Janey 1E, 1990 
  

Count  Fercent 
  

COMNIS 5S TONER OF. AGRICULTURE. 

1 [AH a KREMEK SN Te 

id JOHHM EARL SMITH 
JIM HIGHTOWER. a 
I" NEAL BURNETT ch 

CLYDE W CHANDLER 
DAN FUSTEJOVSKY 

“A PAUL MCDANIEL 

4 Total . ’ . 

TRATLROAT COMMISSIONER | 

bs ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER . .o uw: wo. 

CLINT HACHNEY as lie 

gE Toba JF rm, a) ny 

i 
HCHIEE. JUSTICE, SUFREME COURT 

DOCAR H'DAUZY ee nie 19, 02% 200 

Total - . . » REE 19 y 02% EEA ) 5G een 

  

4.47 

8.8 
70.5% 

[= 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

“JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT, FLACE 

5 FRED BIERY 20 a ™ sii a . 2,208 

SHE KELLY. Fo. ok / 1E,818 

Total wih lay 22,043 
  

  

‘4 JUSTICE, SUPREME_COURT, FLACE. 2 

pon GANMABE . wal ot’ of 7,804 
SCRAFFY HOLMES re TSR 

2 eer ROSS. BEARS — Zali 8 ne 2 
of . : Lary : : $7 . 

vl ’, 7: a 

  

  

JUDGE, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, FLACE 1 

* FRAMIC MALONEY Thai wa wT A, 
MORRIS L OVERSTREET . . . Won 40.54 

S JEFF. VAN. HORN Smt 30 WT: MN 1 
3 Total : ' § % i ay = k 43 oe ; rt en 2 i % 1 EE TE TT 

  

  

  JUDGE ,. COURT.OF_CRIMIMAL AFPFEALS Fl ACE 

SAM HOUSTON CLINTON . . . - . . 

Fobtad a TH. leis ew ee . 7 450% 100.00 

  

i 

June, COURT OF CRIMINAL 'AFPEALS, FLACE = BSE nt, 

B LLL WHITE © oh REE, Et 2,95 62.467 
Y—— FAT. .BARBER. al en : Rc APT: Lak 

* Total a Bt WE ie ROTA 100.00 
  

8 JULGE ,-- COURT JE CRIMINAL APE EAal bh, PLACE 4 

CHARLES F (CHARLIE): ‘BAIRD PY a ey 37 Stearn 

HERE HANCOCK JRE vo a Uy  BrBGE ARR 
TX Te I CR El A nD 22 100.00 

  

  
  

J rrecincts Counted - BOARD OF EDUCATION 7 MEY 100.00 

A x. Hoh 
HEaliots Cast — BOARD OF EDUCATION 7 
  

   



4 CAROLYN HONEA CRAWFORD . " wih i 

HPrecincts Counter 

‘sTATE REFRESENMTATIVE, 

“CHIEF JUSTICE, 

FINAL TOTAL HEMOCRATIC FARTY 

2152315 Lar 1990 

QEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

Combined Regulear and Absentee 

I doy 

lanl lols 

  

MARCH 13, 1990. 

SO Liiy. 7 
Count Percent 

  Horo. STATE BOARD OF iy 
17,577 

t | Taba oan BRL de lea i Ra a 
100. 00 
100.00 

  

Trane Counted - STATE REPRESENTATIVE DIST 2012 

[Ballots Cast — STATE. REPRESENTATIVE NIST. 20 

STATE REFRESEMTATIVE, DISTRICT 20 
CURTIS. SOLLEAN ote itmmptortotteim fren? 

100.00. 717 7 

  

64.10 
  

THEW FELT + «+ mire iE an ti TRE
90 

  

STATE REFRESEHTATIVE DIST 2117 

Ballots Cast ~ STALE REPRESENTATIVE DIST «J 

100.00 

  

BISTRICT: 2] 

SHARK HST ILED. mtomnsiort 71,92 
  

  

CINDY JEMKINS . . . . | = " 

i =) Total - - ™ w ™ IY " - ™ n 

28.75 

100.00 

  

“precincts Counted ~ STATE. REPRESENTATIVE DIST ZZ 
ia 

100.00 

  TRallots Cast -. 8T TE REERESENTATIME DIST. 22 11,368 
wl 

9, 

“STATE REFRESEMTATIVE, NISTRILT 22 
100,00 

  HE efile PRICE a ade amin oss ineemtrmsiomtinss sommes oy AZ 
: Tobad ile «erie es ew ie Te y 47.5 

precincts Co 

Ballots Cast ST ATE REPRESENTATIVE DIST 23 14,2008 

STATE REFRESEMIATLVE. AAR. ZABE 

100.00 

end 00.00   

  

STATE REFRES SENTAT IVE, DISTRICT 27 

FRANK COLLAZO JR - [] » » . ; a " oY DF LE Re 

end I SHIT re . a . ease . 4,272 

orosopl 
ng gg 

  

To t cl 1 a - »” Ll - “ L] » o L 1: ol y 2 t 4 & 

NINTH. COURT OF AFFEALS DISTRICT 

100.00 

  

ROHALLD L WALKER on . : . ’ 

Total . " he . ar 

12100500: 
100.00 

  

“DISTRICT JUDGE, S8TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 
MIKE RRADFORD . . . . " . 

Jotal  .. a » a a al ys 

100.00 

  

DISTRICT JUDGE, 172ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 
ONAL OY ee bi hmmm Dp DEY 

100,00 

    

TORY ede le de a Tea a a WSS, 00 

JDISTRICT JULDE.. SSMU JUDICIAL DISTRICT. idiom som 
LEOWART J GIELINEJRES J WT 20, BAY 

Total 3s ite tel ie RO 2G5 

100.00 

  

100,00 
100.00 

   



    

:NISTRICT JUDGE,..Z 

SCRIMIMAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

pd Total - “ 

FINAL TOTAL DEMOCRATIC FARTY 

fprsril sy 1E-Har-1990 Combined Rescpul ar 

: NEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY EL 

andl Absentee 

ECTION 

Fage 

Ballots 

  
JEEEE ESO L SLL Y 

    

  272214 JUIICIAL. HIS STRICT. 

ROBERT WALKER . " x - « “ . 

Total “ - ” = " ” a - o 

3 

18 CIR 100.00 
100.00 

  

© JUDGE, CRIMINAL Ig STRICT COURT 

LARRY GlaT " » ® . “ " v 

Total N a OB tA a 
  

THISTRICT JUDGE, 217TH JUDICIAL DESGTRICT 

LANES 1 (JIM) EARRIS.. 

Total » » ” - - » ] " w v 

  

el POM FSMIESE Vy a JR te Wu, 
= - LJ LJ LJ " 

Marne sss WB yresmmessnrBuasr se corral + umes cos en Marne se mun mc eansn es mmm 

“ 

” 

"2 90 

,, FEY 

20,590 100.00 
100.00 
  

18,606 
Lia 008%... 100.00   

100.00 

  

100.00 
100.00 

  

COUNTY JULIGE 
-S RICHARD F LEBLANC JR 100.00 

100,00 
  

wal 
: 

Lk Total: = aA a "1 ” Rn x Rn a 

“| JUDGE, COUNTY Sm AT 

o
y
 

100,00 
  ALFRED. S_GERS demerits oes 

: Total . » » " » MS. " . “ 

COUNTY COURT. AT LAW,
 NO. 2° 

    

  HL UNGE, 
18,114 100.00 

  

HY HAROLD PLEODALA = » a Tn ew 
2 PROWL BOT REN aE es Je BN 18,114 100.00 

JUDGE, COUNTY COURT AT LAW, MO, 2 oo 0. ooiuiie sedi 
; JOHN FAUL DAVIS SE Re i TER aR Sh a aaa 

Fu = a a an n An tn RII 24.24 
  A SUES LE O"FIEL. 

BRUCE HOFFER . . . . " " . . 
| 

8, . LO5 20.49 

  

I ISTRICT 

JOHN § 

CLERK o 
| 

E
O
 

. 

w
i
a
l
 
d
l
e
 

]n 

  

Sng 

COUNTY CLERK 
Hii LOL ITH 

Tata] 8. van wh dH a Be ial 29.2 a 100.00 

APPLEMAN . © ive sii Whee olny iy 7,380 | 100.000 HD 
TORY ff temas i hae SY GOTO Te 

BAS a a hain Mu PR. TAG 100,00 
  

i Total o » . L] . - a » [] - 

-—i 
J 

COUNTY. TREASURER 

22,146 

  

LINDA FARENT ROBINSON - . . . 

Total » “ - - = » u v N 

6 
“ 18,853 

18,88: 
100.00 
100.00 

  

5 COUNTY SURVEYOR fs 
3 TL oUY. Ip STONECTRNER LCL 

: Total .- a I n n a » ™ A. ” 

LJ 17,662 

hy AZ 
100.00 
100,00" 

  

COUNTY CORPISSIOMER Frecincts Counted - < 29 100.00 

  
  

SHallots Cast - COUNTY COMMISSIONER POT 2 10,564 

  

  

   
   
   



E2h, TOTAL DEMOCRATIC FARTY EE wn! 

La-Mar-1990 Conbined Regular and Absentee Ballots 

  

flatly 27 

   

\ 

re # “MARCH! 13; 19900 

DEMOCRATIC FARTY FRIMARY ELECTION 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 
  

  

‘Lount Fercent 
  

  {COUNTY CORNISSIONER, PRECINCT Ho, p at : 
:! MARK L UOMINGUE . i SOR ag TR 

HOMER KIKER " " " " u nu “ »” n ” 1, AE 

nr, 9% 
14.54 
18,66 

  TE CIN Ame lites rsh irabirtionie 
GEME RASHETA rg Te it Bae la 
HORACE J HEBERT © ut 

ET £5 OM NR a 

  

Hag      

  

We2Zo he 

100.00 

      

  

VFrecincts Counted - COUNTY COMMISSIONER FCT 4 2% 
‘ 

100.00 

  — pu oe sp 

HEallots "Cast ~ COUNTY COMMISSIOMER FCT 4 . 7,508 
= 

SLCOUNTY. COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT MO. 4 
  

BL EN PHIORE wh gels gabe wu 4,708 
i Total = ™ » " ™ " . “ » “ " 4,706 

il 

100.00 

100.00 

  i fs SRLS rw nie Tr G Li 4 

‘SFrecincts Counted - JUSTICE QF REALE FLT] MEL 1 a 100.007 

  

  pallots Cast =. JUSTICE OF PEACE FCT 1. . 1%,504 
2 
|JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, FRECINCT 1, FLACE 2 

I yay 

  id F.AFRIVZ).RILLER, EE 20.200 

WI NCEIHNNIS ED. Be nite in, ar ade enh Or SLT 
TOLATE a ae nm 4, LEIA 100. set 

  

  
7 a 

SErecincts Counted - JUSTICE OF FEACE PCT 2 . 2 100. 00 

  Spallots Cast . 

JUSTICE OF THE FEACE, PRECINCT 2y PLACE 2 
JOHN. §. (JOHHHY) RHOMLES a a, ahd 

~JUSLLLE.. Al prabe 1 ll SRCARRILLR WRI AL 1. 

   MT 

  

a
 

Fa
d 

1 

~3
 > 23
 

5
 t ji TOURY ha le Re Tw WT ee 100.00 

  
*Frecincts Counted. = JUSTICE OF FEALE PLT HA ] 

"Ballots Cast - JUSTICE OF PERCE FOTIREL 0. ir 

100,00 

  

JUSTIGE OF THE FEACE., FREUINCT. 

[a : - | A i. T 2 RK - - - LJ - “" LJ LJ - “ NS & - 100.00 

  
a £0 ORE LT SL. ro WR SR. 

“Frecincts Counted - JUSTICE OF FEACE FCT 4d iy 

100.00 

TT Le 

  

  

{Eallots Cast - JUSTICE OF FEACE FCT 4 .  . 1,627 
OH 

4 

JUSTICE OF THE. PEACE, ERECIMUY 3 
  

JOE HADDAD . . . " “ i " " “ ow: B10 

JACK CRAVY " . " ‘ . " " " " " 1,02) 

T o i Et ] " 0 Wo i iene Wns Cirat Ws ceirmerin ” oe NER Wodiottaintid in 4 4 1   

28.4% - 
Ziann 

100.00 
  

|Frecincts Counted ~ JUSTICE OF PEACEPRLT 5 . 2 4 ; 100.00 

  
  

Ballots Cast =~ JUSTICE OF PEACE POT. 5... . . 4%% 

  

 



  

Fiat TOTAL DEMOCRATIC FARTY Fao fd 

   
poten mer 1 BW Setar <1 990 Combined Regular and Absentee Ballots 

of Sel DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION 

wh JEFFERSON COUNTY a Th ret   
  

MARCH 0, A770 

Count 

  

: Frecinets Counted - JUSTICE OF ERasy ReT 7 19 

“JUSTICE OF THE FEACE, PRECINCT 7 

JUGTIOR GF TARE BEALE, BRECIHCT. J... essen en mses ion wiptsieptvosm sinsiiors i 

’ " ; 100.00 

pay lube Moash = JUSTILE oF. Ra 

Fearcent 

  

: ROHSLD CC BENOIT y 4 . : : 40 

£ Yota) . i . . " : . " . . d 1:10 100.00 

{   

100.00 

  

100.00 
  I ROTEL Ad Ce it einstein SE En 

2.02 ay 
= Tot at | - » = - " - Ta. - - oo. 

CCOUNTY CHAIRMAR. 

100.00 

  

4} STELLA IM MORRISON . . . " . . " oo Tu bl 

* GILBERT AT aR . . “ " “ . 16,800 

To t at 1 fi 1 = ene t ii I 2 an n n n as | 428 

2H.47 

LY 

  

“REFEREMDUM HO. 1° ET 
NES (SY) ve » n a - MN A F 8 M Nn 18,788 

100.00 

  

EL HO CHOY Ra en. Ee 
3 3 C ¢ ct 1 " - " - “ “ " " " » = é [ (} 7 0 

Poy 

Hgeiny 
27.9% 

100.00 
  

5 REFERENDUM NO. 2 a re 
i YES ASIN . ain. bo TE pn a ns, ROL BAR 

17.05 

  

  i MO..{NO) RRR TR RR 
pe Total " M " n " - n n " - " 25147 

Teea— - a 

REFERENDUM MO._X 

100.00 

  

YES ASI Cos wa Tg Jy Le all 87) 
NO (HAY, are thins, hi ge : yi PRY IY Ct, hind EAE 

ote ee . » 2513300 

  
CHEE YY SR RR NC RR Riera 

  

I hereby certify that the above results are true and correct.’ Fn ines 
  

  

  

i  — 
LOLITA RAMOS, County. Clerk 

y Jefferson County, Texas 
  

: March 13, 1990 Democratic Primary — Jefferson County, Texas 

  

  
  

  

i 

3 
’ 

Ie = sila amici  dois 

] 
1 

- 

  

 



    

fe 
™ 

=
,
 

al 

: | { 

D 

faint A foTe (DTA me LU ET LS rT Gof) pms fo force 

16:50 10-Apr-1990 Combined -Regular and Absentee Ballots 
ord 
fle 

  

  

IEMOCRATTC=PARTV=RUN=ORF=EECT-LON 

—- 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

      

Hage 1 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

of " ARRF al Op an 25.0 me TTT 

1] Count Percent % 

|:]. Precincts Counted - TOTAL. ei oi, vi ie ve AOR 100.00 an 

"4 

5] Ballots Cast - “ag. ula Hh 06,088 

7 GOVERNOR Gad TI 

8 ANN W. RICHARDS Ere Sl i el be 48.29 

s] JIM MATTOX oie me ew A2e993 91.71 
io Total i eile ar ee OELiT0 166.66" m 

{I 

2 STATE TREASURER 59 
3 TOM ROWDEN AEE TING GT LI Re Ny Bh 25.03 

14 NIKKI VAN HIGHTOMER « « ie. « a. ».5# 18,379 64.97 
hs) Total EAE ee A Le we 20950) 100.00 
i : 7] 

i7| JUSTICE, SUFREME COURT, PLACE 2 
18 HOR GAMMAGE oo be wl mE J. 18.240 66.28 

1s] ROSS SEARS oie id Chie 6e7B) 23.77 ae 

20 Total oe . aia 192993 "300.00 go 
24) 

igh 

22 JUDGE, COURT OF CRIMINAL AFFEALS, FLACE SER # = 

p3 ~ FRANK MALONEY oe “ie oe TeE90 48.93 

ze MORRIS L. OVERSTREET + iw a eo ai, 410,008 51.07 

ps Total ‘i 5» = ie 19.558" 160.00 rT 
1X6 

off0UDGE , ‘COUNTY COURT AT LAW, NO. 3 ed Mol 
sf ~~ BRUCE HOFFEK ci oad al ERAGE VW Ly 50.06 : 
9) JOHN PAUL a iy, 2 408 49.94 

po Total _ £ ine sw . on 24,942 .5.100,00 
31 : Rk 

33 $0) 

24 Ee ae = (1 ? 

x 
bd This race underwent an official manual recount of votes conducted 
bby the Democratic Party with the following results: = GE 
38 mg 

4 JUDGE, COUNTY COURT AT LAW, NO. 3 : 
ol Bruce Hoffer or 2,523 ET 

John Paul Davis 12 541 

3 Total a 26,033 IR 

a 3 
fi vom I hereby certify that the above results are true and correct. , 

i MEA ——— hh —— ee = — sve es | 

Pe wa 

‘9 ____ LOLITA RAMOS, County.Clerk . : hi 
- Jefferson County, Texas 

2 _April 10, 1990 Democratic Party Run-off, Jefferson County, Texas _ ..._._. 

ES 
| | 
TE TTT Tif coe ee lr a 
ind go : HS A oF gen 

1, i . 4 eal