Defendant-Intervenor Dallas County Judge Entz's (1) Objections to Proposed Interim Plans and (2) Motion for Stay

    HUGHES & LUCE 

2800 MOMENTUM PLACE 

1717 MAIN STREET 

  

DALLAS, TEXAS 7520) S00 CNE CONGRESS PLAZA 

4 11 CONGRESS 

(214) 939-5500 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 

FAX (214) 939-6100 (512) 482-6800 
TELEX 730836 FAX (512) 482-6859 

Direct Dial Number 

(214) 939-5581 

December 22, 1989 

FEDERAL EXPRESS 

  

Re: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 
et al. v. Jim Mattox, et al., Civil Action 
MO 88 CA 154 

Dear Mr. Neill: 

Enclosed please find an original and two copies of 
Defendant-Intervenor Dallas County District Judge Entz's (1) 
Objections to Proposed Interim Plan(s) and (2) Motion for Stay. 

Please return file-marked copies to me in the enclosed 
envelope. Please note that copies of the above document are 

being sent by certified mail to the other parties. 

If you have any questions, please call. Thank you. 

David C. Godbey 

DCG/pai 
Enclosures 

 



  

Cec. (CERTIFIED MAIL RRR) 

William L. Garrett 

Rolando Rios 

Susan Finkelstein 
Sherrill A. Ifill Vv” 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Renea Hicks 
Ken Oden 

David R. Richards 

J. Eugene Clements 
Darrell Smith 
Michael J. Wood 

 



  

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, § 

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 
v. § MO-88-CA-154 

§ 
JIM MATTOX, et al., § 

§ 
Defendants. § 

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DALLAS COUNTY 

DISTRICT JUDGE ENTZ'S (1) OBJECTIONS TO 

PROPOSED INTERIM PLAN AN 2) MOTION R STA 

Defendant-Intervenor Dallas County Judge Entz ("Judge 

Entz") objects to the proposed interim plan jointly submitted 

by Defendant Mattox and Plaintiff LULAC (the "Joint Plan"), 

and the plan suggested by Chief Justice Phillips (the 

"Phillips Plan"), and requests that any interim plan entered 

by stayed pending appeal, for the following reasons: 

OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLANS 
  

1. Judge Entz objects to the imposition of any interim 

plan because the underlying findings and holdings of liability 

are improper for the reasons stated in Judge Phtshe Post-Trial 

brief and the post-trial briefs of the other defendants, which 

are incorporated by reference into these Objections. 

2. Judge Entz objects to the imposition of any interim 

plan prior to the availability of the 1990 census data. One 

of the hallmarks of the judicial branch of government is 

continuity and stability. Imposing an interim plan now, 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 

AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 1 
  

 



  

knowing that it is just a stopgap, guarantees disrupting the 

judicial system twice. 

3. Judge Entz further objects to the following specific 

aspects of the Joint Plan: 

a. The Joint Plan permits the assignment of specialized 

courts to districts after the election by the presiding judge; 

this discretion is checked only by the proposal that 

incumbents get first choice of specialization. This post-hoc 

assignment violates equal protection and due process. There 

is no rational basis for any one district electing a court of 

any particular specialization under the Joint Plan; 

furthermore, persons similarly situated are treated 

differently because they are "represented" by judges of 

different specialized courts based on the apparently 

uncontrolled discretion of the presiding judge. 

b. Similarly, the assignment of pre-existing court 

numbers (and presumably pre-existing court dockets) based on 

incumbency and the uncontrolled discretion of the presiding 

judge violates due process and equal protection. 

c. The Joint Plan allocates judicial districts to state 

house districts apparently according to the racial composition 

of the house districts. For example in Dallas, District 111 

has one of the three highest concentrations of black voters of 

all house districts, and it receives three judicial 

districts. Districts 112 and 113 have among the highest 

concentrations of white voters in Dallas County; District 113 

  
receives only one judicial district and District 112 has no 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 
AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 2 

 



  

judicial districts. This allocation violates equal protection 

and due process. 

Initially, there is no justification for wholly depriving 

voters in district 112 from the opportunity to elect judges. 

Furthermore, there is no justification for the gross disparity 

between district 113 voters and district 111 voters in the 

opportunity to elect judges. Finally, the method used to 

assign "extra" judicial districts to some house districts and 

deprive other house districts of equivalent judicial districts 

-- according to published reports and as is apparent from the 

actual allocation in Dallas County -- was the racial 

composition of the house districts; that is the most flagrant 

violation of equal protection that Judge Entz has heard of in 

quite some time. In fact, Judge Entz can think of no fair way 

of assigning "extra" judicial districts to house districts in 

any manner that would satisfy due process and equal protection. 

d. Intrinsically, a plan that provides for elections 

from single member districts, while retaining county-wide 

venue violates equal protection and due process, because it 

effectively disenfranchises 16/17th of the voters in Dallas 

County from voting for judges who have the COWL to decide 

cases governing their lives. 

e. Maintaining jury venires on a county-wide basis while 

selecting judges from judicial districts smaller than a county 

violates equal ©protection, due process, and the Sixth 

Amendment as applied both directly to this Court and as 

applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 

AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 3 
  

 



q. The Attorney General has not purported to propose 

this plan on behalf of all State Defendants, but only on 

behalf of himself individually. Judge Entz has been advised 

that various of the other State Defendants do not join in the 

proposal of the plan and in fact oppose it. 

5. Judge Entz further objects to the following specific 

aspects of the Phillips Plan: 

a. The Phillips Plan advocates eliminating the partisan 

nature of Texas' judicial elections. Although the merits of 

partisan versus nonpartisan judicial elections may be debated, 

the ability of the State of Texas to determine that its 

judicial elections should be partisan is beyond dispute. 

Intervention of this Court into such an integral aspect of 

state sovereignty violates fundamental principles of 

federalism, the Guaranty Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. 

b. The Phillips Plan advocates eliminating judicial 

specialization. Again, Judge Entz believes the State of Texas 

has the power to determine how to structure its judiciary in 

this regard. Intervention of this Court into such an integral 

aspect of state sovereignty violates fundamental principles of 

federalism, the Guaranty Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. 

Such intrusion is even less justified given that there was no 

showing or contention that judicial specialization has any 

impact on the number of minority judges. 

c. Judge Entz objects to the Phillips Plan to the extent 

it provides for single member districts for the reasons stated 

above in paragraph 3. 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 
AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 4 
   



d. Judge Entz objects to the Phillips Plan to the extent 

it combines county-wide jurisdiction and venue with single 

member districts for the reasons stated above in paragraph 3. 

e. Judge Entz objects to the Phillips Plan to the extent 

it calls for randomly assigning courts to electoral districts 

as being wholly arbitrary and capricious. 

REQUEST FOR STAY 

6. Judge Entz has previously requested the Court to 

certify its order on liability for interlocutory appeal under 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For the reasons stated in that motion, 

and the above objections, which are incorporated here by 

reference, Judge Entz requests the Court to stay any interim 

order pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit. An interim order 

along the lines of the proposed Joint Plan or the Phillips 

Plan (or any other, for that matter), would effectively 

dismantle the Texas judiciary in most of the major 

metropolitan areas of Texas, while leaving the balance of the 

state to operate under its present system. A subsequent 

reversal on appeal could not undo the damage to the judiciary 

that would be done in the meantime by an interim order. Given 

the admitted uncertainty of this Court's Viability ruling, 

prudence, comity and federalism all mandate a stay pending 

appeal. % 

WHEREFORE, Judge Entz requests the Court not to enter an 

interim order pending interlocutory appeal of the Court's 

ruling on liability; in the alternative, Judge Entz objects to 

the Joint Plan and the Phillips Plan for the reasons noted; in 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 

AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 5 
   



  

the further alternative, Judge Entz requests that any interim 

order or plan be stayed pending appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

David C. Godbey 
Bobby M. Rubarts 

Esther R. Rosenblum 

  

of HUGHES & LUCE 

2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 
COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served upon all counsel of record in ci Sa 

day with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this wey 

Vi fw x Vi 

  

of December, 1989. 

  

JUDGE ENTZ'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERIM PLAN 
AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL -- PAGE 6