Clarification of the Proposed Interim Plan
Public Court Documents
December 29, 1989
3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Clarification of the Proposed Interim Plan, 1989. 3eea7e33-257c-f011-b4cc-6045bdffa665. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bf8e4c76-1a5c-45e0-b4fc-2269201776eb/clarification-of-the-proposed-interim-plan. Accessed November 06, 2025.
Copied!
December 29, 1989
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. District Clerk
200 East Wall Street, Room 316
Midland, Texas 79701
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 a Clarification of the Proposed Interim Plan submitted by
the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-intervenors from Harris
and Dallas Counties, and by Jim Mattox, Attorney General for the State of
Texas.
Sincerely,
ZF
7 rd
Vb
EA / ie {
TN
Renea Hicks
Special Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 463-2085
Enclosures
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND /ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS. Civil Action No.
MO-88-CA-154
JIM MATTOX, et al.,
Defendants.
CLARIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED INTERIM PLAN
The plaintiffs, the plaintiff-intervenors, and the Attorney General
of Texas on behalf of the State of Texas hereby submit the following
clarification of the Proposed Interim Plan:
1, The first sentence in the third paragraph on page 3 of the
Proposed Interim Plan under the heading "OTHER MATTERS OF
ELECTION AND COURT ADMINISTRATION" reads as follows: "The
right to file as a candidate for office by petition based on countywide
signatures is retained, but any necessity of filing a petition in
connection with filing for office are eliminated for the 1990 elections
because of the changes occasioned by the interim plan and the
potential for confusion to judicial candidates regarding filing
requirements."
2. Because ambiguity in the foregoing language may create
confusion, the following language should be substituted in its place:
A candidate for office in the 1990 elections must either
file an application accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee or an application accompanied by a petition based on
countywide signatures that satisfies the requirements of a
petition in lieu of a filing fee. Any state statute requiring
both a filing fee and a petition is waived for the 1990
elections.
Respectfully submitted,
el) AANA Mt
JIM MATTOX
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
2) :
/
/ 7
4 Zz ; #7 A
f- #3 § . f TT 5
) hl [ EL pen po. / 1 V / a Ax fh Ao) £ 5. JLT IHF
7 }
WILLIAM C. GARRETT gh
ROLANDO L. RIOS
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND, FOR
THIS CLARIFICATION, ON BEHALF OF
THE ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS AND THE
ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENORS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 29th day of December, 1989, I sent a copy
of the foregoing document by overnight courier 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 78205; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, 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. Eugene
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.
2
p ' 3 » :
{ p
( 4 La Lokrs XU A133 4 AAA
Cl
Renea Hicks