Response in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate for Submission and Argument, or Alternatively to Schedule for Argument

    State of Texas 

DAN MORALES 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

August 30, 1991 

Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 
Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: LULAC vu. Mattox, No. 50-8014 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are the original 
and three copies of the State Defendants-Appellants' Response in 
Opposition to the Motion to Consolidate for Submission and Argument, 
or Alternatively to Schedule for Argument. 

Sincerely, 

Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

cc: Counsel of Record 
Members of Texas Judicial Districts Board 
Audrey Selden 

512/463-2100 P.O. BOX 12548 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 
ANCECRE SM SPSL ONMENT POR FUNEEY IT MUEOYER 

 



  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

VS. No. 90-8014 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
Defendants-Appellants. Co

n 
Co

N 
Co
n 

UN
 

Co
n 

on
 

Ao
n 

Un
 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR 
SUBMISSION AND ARGUMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SCHEDULE 

FOR ARGUMENT 

The Attorney General of Texas, the Secretary of State of Texas, 

and the members of the Texas Judicial Districts Board, official- 

capacity defendants-appellants ("State Officials"), respond as follows to 

the consolidation motion which has been filed by the plaintiffs- 

appellees in the pending case of Rangel, et al. v. Attorney General of 

Texas, et al., Nos. 89-2868 and 89-6226: 

The State Officials here oppose the consolidation motion for the 

same reasons the State Officials in Rangel oppose it. A copy of the 

response in opposition in Rangel is attached hereto and incorporated 

herein for all purposes. 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

DAN MORALES 
Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 
First Assistant Attorney 
General 

MARY F. KELLER 
Deputy Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS ey 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

    

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Special Assistant Attorney 
General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of August, 1991, 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 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; 
Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 
Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201; Walter L. Irvin, 5787 South 
Hampton Road, Suite 210, Lock Box 122, Dallas, Texas 75232-2255; 
Susan Finkelstein, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 201 N. St. Mary's # 600, 
San Antonio, Texas 78205; and Seagal V. Wheatley, Oppenheimer, 
Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 711 Navarro, Sixth Floor, San 
Antonio, Texas 78205. El TA 

Renea Hicks 
  

O. 

 



  

No. 89-2868 and 89-6226 

  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

RITA RANGEL, et al, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

VS. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

  

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR 
SUBMISSION AND ARGUMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SCHEDULE 

FOR ARGUMENT 

The Attorney General of Texas and the Secretary of State of 

Texas, defendants-appellants herein ("State Officials"), respond as 

follows to the plaintiffs-appellees Motion to Consolidate for Submission 

and Argument, or Alternatively to Schedule for Argument: 

Consolidation of this case with the LULAC case (involving Texas 

state district judges) would impose an unfair burden on the State 

Officials, who continue to be represented by the same counsel 

representing the State Officials in LULAC. The LULAC briefing 

schedule, with the State Officials’ opening brief due on September 6, 

1991, already is highly compressed. Imposing upon the State Officials 

in this case, during the same time period, the additional briefing 

burden which the plaintiffs-appellees seek to impose would force a 

 



diversion from the kind of focused attention which LULAC uniquely 

demands. 

There is no doubt that the decision in LULAC will help guide the 

Court's deliberation in this case, but that is a reason to defer decision 

in this case, not to rush it to conclusion. The Court is reasonably 

familiar with the LULAC trial record; it is not familiar with the one 

here. Circumstances have made LULAC the bellwether case in this 

circuit for the interaction of voting rights principles and elected state 

judicial systems. This case -- Rangel -- is no different than many 

others in that it must await elucidation in LULAC of the guiding, basic 

legal principles. There is nothing wrong or unfair about this situation. 

It is simply the way things work. 

Further complicating the already complicated issues presented 

in LULAC through the introduction on short notice of another trial 

record and another lower court decision will not aid the Court at all. 

The Court's order of August 7, 1991, denying the Rangel plaintiffs- 

appellees’ most recent motion to dissolve the stay, adopted the 

posture which should be adopted here. That is, the resolution of the 

issues in this case must await further development of the applicable 

legal standards in LULAC. 

Based upon the foregoing matters, the defendants-appellants 

urge the Court to deny the plaintiffs-appellees' consolidation motion.  



  

Respectfully submitted, 

DAN MORALES 
Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 
First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY F. KELLER 
Deputy Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS re 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE 
OFFICIALS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of August, 1991, a copy of the 
foregoing document was mailed by first class United States mail, 
postage prepaid, to David R. Richards, Richards, Wiseman & Durst, 
600 W. 7th Street, Austin, Texas 7870} «if 

Vora 
  

Renea Hicks