Plaintiff-Appellees' and Dalals-Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellees' Response to Wood's Motion to Consolidate

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

NO. 90-8014 VS. 

MATTOX, et al., 

* 
% 

F 
¥ 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

Defendant-Appellants. 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES’ AND DALLAS-PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR- 
APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO WOOD'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

1. Plaintiff-appellees and Dallas-plaintiff-intervenor- 

appellees oppose the Motion to consolidate of Defendant-intervenor- 

appellant Wood. She has asked this Court to consolidate the appeal 

  

in this case with the appeal in Rangel v Mattox, No. 89-6226, now 

pending before this Court. Although Rangel is also a voting rights 

case about the judiciary in Texas, it is in no other way related 

to this case. It is not even filed in the same court; Rangel is 

filed in the United States for the Southern District of Texas, 

Brownsville Division but this case is filed in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division. 

2 Further, the two cases deal with different aspects of the 

judiciary, which involve different sections of the Texas Government 

Code. Rangel considers the system for electing judges to the 

Thirteenth Court of Appeals in South Texas. Tex. Gov't. Code, 

Section 22.001 et seq. This case, however, deals with electing 

=
)
 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LULAC, et al., 

Plaintiff-Appellees, 

NO. 90-8014 VS. 

MATTOX, et al., 

* 
% 

% 
* 

* 
* 

* 
* 

* 

Defendant-Appellants. 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES'’ AND DALLAS-PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR- 
APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO WOOD'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

1. Plaintiff-appellees and Dallas-plaintiff-intervenor- 

appellees oppose the Motion to consolidate of Defendant-intervenor- 

appellant Wood. She has asked this Court to consolidate the appeal 

  

in this case with the appeal in Rangel v Mattox, No. 89-6226, now 

pending before this Court. Although Rangel is also a voting rights 

case about the judiciary in Texas, it is in no other way related 

to this case. It is not even filed in the same court; Rangel is 

filed in the United States for the Southern District of Texas, 

Brownsville Division but this case is filed in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division. 

2. Further, the two cases deal with different aspects of the 

judiciary, which involve different sections of the Texas Government 

Code. Rangel considers the system for electing judges to the 

Thirteenth Court of Appeals in South Texas. Tex. Gov't. Code, 

Section 22.001 et seq. This case, however, deals with electing 

 



  

judges to the district court bench in nine counties. Id., Section 

24.001 et seq. Not one of those counties is in South Texas. 

3 Further, the two cases involve different parties and 

government officials. There are different plaintiffs and, 

generally, different defendants. In addition, although the 

Judicial Districts Board considers redistricting of the district 

courts, it is not involved in redistricting of the appellate 

courts. Id., Sections 24.941-54. 

4. Also, the defensive issues in the two cases are 

different. For example, although defendants in this case have 

raised the issue of partisanship, that is not an issue in Rangel 

because South Texas is predominantly Democratic. Also, Rangel does 

not involve the issue of collegial-body decision makers, which 

defendants and defendant-intervenors have raised here. 

5. In addition, the two cases are in different procedural 

postures. Rangel has proceeded to judgment but this case has not. 

bs Finally, the consolidation of these two cases would pose 

procedural problems in this Court. Both cases are complex both 

procedurally and substantively. Consideration of the two appeals 

together would probably require additional time for oral argument. 

Also, the consolidation of this case with Rangel might delay the 

Rangel argument because appeal was filed in that case a month 

earlier than appeal was filed in this case. This would 

unnecessarily delay that case, which is of clear import to the 

State of Texas. 

Dated: January 9, 1990 

 



  

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 

    

BY: &s.- 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES 
  

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 

& CLOUTMAN, P. C. 
3301 Elm 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 
(214)939-9222 

E. Brice Cunningham 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 

777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy, 
Suite 121 
Dallas, TX 75203 
214/428-3793 

 



J » 

  

BY: & 4 Clnctmnis by SE 
ATTORNEY FOR DALLAS-PLAINTIFF- 
INTERVENOR-APPELLEES JOAN WINN 
WHITE, JESSE OLIVER & FRED 
TINSLEY 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

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

correct copy of Plaintiff-appellee and Dallas-plaintiff-intervenor- 

appellees’ Response to Wood’s Motion to Consolidate has been 

mailed via certified mail to: 

  
  

  

ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 

Plaintiff - Intervenors 

Julius Levonne Chambers Houston Lawyers Assn. 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill Francis Williams 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Rev. William Lawson 

Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson St., 16th floor 
New York, NY 10013 
212/219-1900 

  

Gabrielle K. McDonald Houston Lawyers Assn. 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB Francis Williams 
301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 Rev. William Lawson 
Austin, TX 78701 Texas Legislative 
512/320-5055 Black Caucus 

Defendants 

Jim Mattox All Defendants 
Mary F. Keller 
Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajardo 
Attorney General’s Office 
P. O. Box 12548 
Austin, TX 78711 
512/463-2085 

 



  

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 

 



    
  

Seagal V. Wheatley Bexar County District 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher Judges 
& Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, 6th Floor 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

each at the correct address on this 9th day of January, 1990. 

zl Ta ott. gr PPR 
  

Zz ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF



C0284 X1'0 INOLINY NYS 
009 3441 ine 

MYA 18 'N LOE 
"ONI ‘Qiv oa: Ne) ives 

RAL LEC GAL AID, INC. TEXAS A A YS 

“i 53 800 

= aun ANTONIO, TX 78205 

Sherrijy, Ifi1] NAAcp 1, Legaj D 
99 Hudson, 

New York, ny 

efeng 
l6th £1 
Y 10013 

€ Fund 
O0or