Plaintiff-Intervenors First Response to Defendant-Intervenor Wood's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

    ALL 

    

® National Office GW 

Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

March 17, 1989 

J. Eugene Clements, Esq. 
Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Re: HLA v. Mattox 

Dear Mr. Clements: 

Enclosed please find plaintiff-intervenor Houston Lawyers’ 
Association's et al., First Response to defendant-intervenor 
Sharolyn Wood's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for 
Production of Documents. 

Plaintiff-intervenors recognize the ongoing obligation to 
supplement these responses in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P,. 
26(e). 

  
Contributions are 

deductible for U.S. 

income tax purposes. 

SAI/dm 

encls 

Regional Offices 

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 800 

of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 634 S. Spring Street 

(NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90014 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate (202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405 

Board, program, staff, office and budget. Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075 

 



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, 

Houston Lawyers’ Association, Alice 
. Bonner, Weldon Berry, Francis Williams, 
Rev. William Lawson, Deloyd T. Parker, 
Bennie McGinty, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

vs. 
  

JAMES LATTOX, Attorner General of the 
Scate of Texas, et al., 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION’S 
FIRST RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR WOOD’S FIRST 
SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENTS 
  

Plaintiff. intervenors Eouston Lawyers’ Association, et al., 

through undersigned counsel, submit the following responses to 

defendant-intervenor Wood’s First Set of Interrogatories and 

Requests for Production of Documents. In accordance with Rule 26 

(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff- 

intervenors will supplement their responses as furtnzar relevant 

information becomes available.  



  

INTERROGATORY NC. 1: 
  

As to each person you expect to call as an expert witness in 

the trial of this case: 

(a) identify each person; 
  

(b) state the uacter(s) on which each person is expected to 

testify; 

(c) state the substance of the facts and opinions to which 

the person is expected to testify, and summarize the grounds for 

each opinion; and 

(d) identify each person whom you have retained as a con-   

sulting expert in connection with the instant litigation, to the 

extent such person’s opinion will be relied upon, in whole or in 

part, by any person .dentified in Answer to subpart (a) hereof. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 
  

At this time, plaintiffs expect to call: 

(a) Richard L. Engstrom, PH.D. 
Department of Political Science 
University of New Orleans’ 
New Orleans, LA 70148 
(504) 286-6671 

(b) Dr. Engstrom is expected to testify about the exist- 

ence of racially polarized voting in elections in Harris County, 

Texas, vote dilution, and remedies therefore. 

(c) Dr. Engstrom will analyze election returns from recent 

elections in Harris County, Texas, socioeconomic data from the 

Bureau of the Census, and demographic data estimates from Harris 

County. 

 



  

(d) Mr. Jerry Wilson 
Southern Regional Council 
60 Walton Street 

"Atlanta, GA 30303 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying each and every document, 
  

including, without limitation, each and every demographic report 

for study or compilation of demographic data, that has been 

submitted to, prepared by, or used by each person you expect to 

call as an expert witness, including his/her associates, with 

regard to the subject matter of this litigation and all documents 

furnished to persons identified in Ansver to Interrogatory No.   

19d), above. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NMA. 1: Dr. Engstrom will   

rely on election returns from district judge elections in Harris 

County. These documents are available for public inspection at 

the Secretary of State’s offices in Austin, Texas, or at the 

Harris County Clerk’s offices in Houston, Texas. Mr. Engstrom 

will also rely on maps prepared by the Bureau of the Census. 

"hese maps are public records, available for inspection at the - 

Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the coneus, Mr. Engstrom will also 

rely on ethnic data precinct estimates. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 
  

State the 4uw _ifications of each expert witness and/or 

consulting expert. identified in response to Interrogatory No.l to 

 



  

render an opinion with respect to the matters: for which vou have 

retained his services. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: This information is pro-   

vided on Dr. Engstrom’s, and Mr. Wilso>n’s resumes. Ccpies of 

each of those resumes are attached to tl.ese responses. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

State the factual basis for your claim in ¢3 of your 

Complaint in Intervention that you represent the black voters of 

Harris County, Texas. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Flaintiff-intervenors made   

no such claim in paragraph 3 of their complaint. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 

provide the factual bases for your answer to Interrogatory No.3. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: See Response to   

Interrogatory No. 3. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 
  

  

Identify all officers and members of the Houston Lawyers 

Association. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff-intervenors   

object to Interrogatory No. 4’s request fcr the identification of 

all members of the Houston Lawyers’ Association. The Houston 

 



Lawvers’ Association as an organization may assert the rights of 

  

its members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 427 (1963). 

The officers of the Houston Lawyers’ Association are: 

Algenita Scott Davis, President 
Benjamin Pigott, President Elect 
Peggy Foreman, Recording Secretary 
McKen Carrington, Correspondence Secretary 
Willie Rhodes, Treasurer 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 
  

State the factual basis for your claim in 422 of your Com- 

plaint in Tntervention that blacks and/cr Hispanics are denied 

the right to participate equally in the judicial electoral 

process in Harris County. 

  

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 According to the Surreme 

Court in Thornburg wv. Gingles, the seminal case interpreting §2   

of the Voting Richts Act, as amended, an electoral scheme 

violates §2 when "a certain electoral law, practice or structure 

{interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an 

inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters 

to elect their preferred representatives." 92 L.BA.24 25,44 

(1986). In charging that the currently constituted at large 

system denies Black voters the opportunity to participate equally 

in the district judge electoral process, plaintiffs rely on 

Texas’ long history of discrimination against Blacks in the area 

of votiag rights, as well as historical socioeconomic disparities 

in education and income between Bl-cks and whites in Texas. 

Plaintiffs &l.. rely on the failure of Black candidates to be 

5  



  

elected under the currently constituted at large system, despite 

overwhelming support from Black voters. 

Support for these facts are widely available in Bureau of 

the Census "Population, Housing & Geographic Subjects" renor:s. 

Texas’ history of official discrimination, restricting the 

ability of Blacks to participate in the electoral process is well 

documented in a line of cases spanning fifty years. See e.q., 

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) (challenge to use of white   

  

primary by Texas Democratic party); Upham v. Seamon, 45% U.S. 37 

(1982); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1273): Cambos v. City 

of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988) (at large system of   

electing city council members impermissibly dilutes the voting 

strength of Black and. Hispanic voters). Election returns for 

Harris County reveal the defeat of Black candidates for district 

judge seats. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to the claim that 

blacks and/or Hispanics are denied the right to participate 

equally in the judicial electoral process in Harris County. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: The cases   

referred to above are published in the West’s National Reporters 

and therefore are presumably already available to defendants. 

"Population, Housing & Geographic Subjects’ reports for Harris 

County and Texas are public records available at the Dept. of 

 



Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Election returns, available for 

public examination at the Secretary of State’s offices, as well 

as at the Harris County clerk’s offices, demonstrate the failure 

of Blacks to be elected under the currently constituted at large 

system. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 
  

State the factual basis for your claim that you have 

personally been denied the right to elect state district judges 

of your choice. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY iO. 6: All plaintiff-intervenors,   

Black voters residing in Harris County. have supported and voted 

for Black candidates ror district judge in Harris County, who 

were defeated under the currently constituted at large system of 

electing district judges. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents which 
  

support or otherwise relate to answer to Interrogatory No. 6 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: At the present   

time, plaintiffs have no documents responsive to this request. 

If plaintiffs obtain any such documents, defendants will be 

informed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (e).  



  

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 
  

State whether you are alleging that the system of electing 

state district judges at large in Harris County is the result of 

an intent to discriminate against blacks and/or Hispanics. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiffs state that the   

current system electing state district judges at large in Texas 

was adopted with the intention of and/or has been maintained for 

the purpose of minimizing the political strength of Black voters. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that refer, 

  

  

relate, or pertain to your answer to Interrogatory No. 7. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST .FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Plaintiff-   

in:ervenors refer defendants to the legislative history accom- 

painying the passage of Art. 5, Sec. 7 of the Texas Constitution. 

These documents are a matter of public record, available for 

inspection at the Legislative Reference Library in the State 

Capitol in Austin, Texas. Tapes of House debates are available 

in the House Committee Coordinator‘s Offices in Austin, Texas. 

Tapes of Senate debates and bill discussions are available for 

public examination in the Senate Staff Services Offices in 

Austin, Texas. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 
  

(a) State whether or not you ar-e claiming that the systen, 

currently in effect in Harris County, Texas, of electing district 

 



  

® er » 

judges at large to serve specialized functions, such as the 

adjudication of civil disputes or criminal disputes or family law 

matters, should be abolished or otherwise changed; and (b) if 

your answer to part (a) is affirmative, describe in detail how 

you would change said system; and (c) if negative, fully describe 

how each single member judicial district could be drawn to 

preserve judicial specialization. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The complaint filed by   

plaintiff-intervenors does not at this time challenge that aspect 

of the system currently in effect in Harris County, Texas, of 

electing district judges at large to serve specialized functions, 

such as the adjudication of civil disputes or criminal disputes 

or family law matters. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents which 

refer, relate, or pertain to your answer to Interrogatory No. 8. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Plaintiff-   

intervenors will produce appropriate remedial plans in accord- 

ance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. .7: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your claim that Texas 

has a history of official discrimination acainst the right of 

black citizens to participate in the democratic process. 

 



  

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Plaintirf- 
  

‘intervenors have previously referred defendants to the case of 

Smith v. Allwright, as well as other cases available in West’s   

  

Naticnal Reporters. See alsp Tex. Civ. Code Ann., Art. 2959, 

whicl. required that a poll tax be collected from all persons of 

voting age as a prerequisite to voting. In addition, defendant- 

intervenors may inspect and copy past Texas statutory provisions 

which required: that white anid Black children attend separate 

schools (Texas Constitution, Art.7, Section 7): that whites and 

Blacks ride ir. separate trains and buses (Separate Coach Law, 

Texas Penal Code Art. 1659); that Blacks and whites use separate 

library facilities (Texas Revised Civil Statutes, Art. 1688). 

The SLite’s public libraries are equally available to the def-=- 

dants and contain vciumes recounting the history of discrimi- 

nation in Texas. 1f plaintiffs produce any specific expert 

reports, defendants will be informed in accordance with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(e). 

INTERROGATORY NO.9: 
  

State whether or not you are claiming that blacks and 

Hispanics are or have been denied the right to participate fully 

in the election of state district judges generally in Texas or 

only in certain counties and explain the reasons for your answer. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: At present plaintiff-   

intervencrs’ claims are focused on the inability of Black voters 

to participat. equally in the poiitical process in electing 

10 

 



  

candidates of their choice in Harris County district judge 

elections. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to Interro- 

gatory No. 9. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: At the present   

time, plaintiff-intervenors have no documents responsive *o *his 

request.’ If plaintiff-intervenors obtain any such documents, 

defendants will be informed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P 26(e). 

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 
  

State the claimed relevance of your contention in 4119 of 

your Complaint in Intervention that the State of Texas and its 

political subdivisions are covered by Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965. 

  

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: The preclearance require- 

ment of Section © of the Voting Rights Act applies to those 

states, counties, cities and towns that (1) used a test or 

device, such as literacy tests of English-only registration 

procedures where there were large language minority populations 

and (2) where less than half of the voting-age population was 

registered and voted in the 1964, 1968 or 1972 presidential 

elr.ctions. Texas’ coverage by the preclearance requirements of 

section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is evidence of the historical 

11 

 



  

existence of obstacles to full voting participation by minorities 

in the State of Texas. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTTON NO. 9: 
RL Mihaly Sli   

“ Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your claim in 419 of 

your Complaint in Intervention that the State of Texas and its 

political subdivisions are doverad by Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR kODUCTICN NO. 9: See 42 LISC   

$1973¢C. See also Regulations Adopted by the Department of 

Justice Governing the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, 28 USC §51.5a4. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying . all documents that 
  

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to your claim in 

920 of your Complaint in Intervention that elections in Harris 

County are characterized by significant racial bloc voting. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Racial bloc   

voting is determined through examination and analysis of election 

returns. Harris County district judge election returns are 

available at the Secretary of State’s offices in Austin, Texas or 

at the Harris County Clerk’s offices in Houston, Texas. 

2 

 



  

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise refer, relate, or pertain to your claim in 

921 of your Complaint in Intervention that "Texas has tradition- 

ally used, and continues to use unusually large election dis- 

trict, particularly in large metropolitan areas such as Harris 

County, which has concentrations of minority voters" to discrimi- 

nate against blacks. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST _ FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Plaintiff- 
  

intervenors refer defendants to the at large system of electing 

district judges at issue in this case. Plaintiff-intervenors 

also refer defendants to the 1970 Texas reapportionment plan in 

which the multimember legislative districts rlanned in Bexar and 

Dallas counties, were held by the Supreme Court to violate the 

‘rights of Blacks and Hispanics. White v. Redester, 412 U.S. 755   

(1973) 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support your claim in 922 of your Complaint in Intervention that 

the political processes leading to nomination or election of 

state district judges in Harris County in particular are not 

equally open to participation by blacks. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: See Response to   

Request for Productic.: No. 3. 

13 

 



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 
  

  

Produce for inspection -and copying all documents that 

support or otherwise relate to your claifs in ¢23 of your 

Complaint in Intervention regarding the siz= of Texas’ population 

and the percentage of blacks in Texas. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Documents sup-   

porting these figures are public records &cvailable in Dept. of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census "Population, Housing and 

Geographic Subject Reports" for the State of Texas. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claims in €26 that only 2% of 

district judges in Texas are black. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: At the present   

time, plaintiff-intervenors have no documents responsive to this 

request. If plaintiff-intervenors obtain any such documents, de- 

fendants will be informed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate to your claims in 9927, 28 and 29 of 

your Complaint in Intervention regarding the size of the Houston 

and Harris County population and the percentage of blacks in each 

nd the percentage of blacks in the voting age population of 

Harris County.  



  

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Documents   

supborting the figures in 99 27,28 and 29 of plaintiff- 

intervenors’ complaint are public records available for inspec- 

tion a: the Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, the Harris 

County Clerk’s offices in Houston, Texas, and the Texas 

Department of Commerce, State Data Center in Austin, Texas. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

indicate the size of the pool of potential black and Hispanic 

attorneys eligible for election as state district judges in 

Harris County, including, without limitation, all documents that 

indicatc the number oF black and Hispanic attorneys in Harri: 

County and/or their years in practice. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Plaintiff-   

intervenors object to this request on the grounds that this 

information is not in the possession or control of plaintiff- 

intervenors, and that compilation of this information would be 

equally burdensome to plaintiff-intervenors as to defendants. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 
  

indicate the percentage of black and Hispanic attorneys among all 

attorneys eligible to run for election as state district judge in 

Harris County. 

15 

 



  

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: See Response *o 
  

Request for Production No. 16. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that sup- 
  

port or otherwise relate to your claims in 932 of your Complaint 

in Intervention that black candidates lost in the November 1936 

general election despite overwhelming black support. 

  

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Ele~tion 

returns from the November 1986 district judge general elections 

are available for inspection and copying at the Secretary of 

State’s offices, and at the Harris County Clerk’s office in 

Houston, Texas. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that sup- 

port or otherwise relate to your claims in 934 of your Complaint 

in Intervention that there is substantial residential segregation 

by race in Harris County. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Harris County   

Census Tract maps for 1980 are available at the Dept. of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 

  

cipport or otherwise relate to your claims in ¢35 of your 

16 

 



  

Complaint in Intervention that blacks in Harris County are 

politically cohesive. that they are geographically insular, that 

‘their candidates are usua..ly defeated, and that white voters in 

Harris County vote as a bloc. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Election   

returns for Harris County district judge elections are available 

for inspection at the Secretary of State’s offices, and at the 

Harris County Clerk’s office in Houston, Texas. Census tract 

maps for Harris County ars available at the Dept. of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 
  

State whether and, ii so, the reasons why, you are claiming 

that black voters and Hispanic voters will combine their votes in 

districts where together they constitute a majority of the 

electorate to vote for a minority judicial candidate over a white 

candidate. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Plaintiff-intervenors   

have not yet determined whether Black and Hispanic voters will 

combine their votes in districts where together they constitute a 

majority of the electorate to vote for a minority judicial 

candidate over a white candidate. If plaintiff-intervenors make 

such a determination, defendants will be informed in accordance 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 

17 

 



INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 
  

State where you would draw each of the "eleven single member 

geographically compact districts" with black majorities that you 

claim in 941 of your Complaint in Intervention could be drawn. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:z: Plaintiff-intervenors   

will supply a map indicating where each single member geographic- 

ally compact district with Black majorities could be drawn in 

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (e). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 
  

Produce for inspection and copying all documents that 

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to Inter- 

rogatory No. 12. 

FPLSPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: At the present   

time, plaintiffs have no documents responsive to this request. 

If plaintiff-intervenors obtain any such documents, defendants 

will be informed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) 

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 
  

Describe how a "non-exclusionary at large system utilizing 

limited or cumulative voting" would, as alleged in 942 of your 

Complaint in Intervention, allow black voters "a more equal 

opportunity to elect district judges." 

  

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: See Karlan, Maps and 
  

Misreadings: The Role Jf Geographic Corpactness in Racial Vote   

Dilution Litigation, 24 Harv. C.R.C.L. L.Rev. 173 (1989).   

18  



  

  

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 

Produce for inspection and copying 211 documents that 
  

support or otherwise relate or pertain to your answer to Inter- 

rogatory No. 13. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: See response to   

Interrogatory Nc. 13. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 
  

State whether or not you are alleging that the determination 

of the size and location of state judicial elaction districts is 

or should be made on the basis of population and explain the 

reasons for your answer. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Plaintiff-intervencrs   

object to Interrogatory No. 14 on the grounds that it is franed 

with insufficient clarity to permit an answer. However, without 

waiving that objection, plaintiff-intervenors. do not allege or 

state that the size and location of state judicial election 

districts is or should be made on the basis of populat.on 

numiers, since judicial districts are not bound by the "one- 

person, one vote" apportionment principle. Wells v. Edward, 409 
  

U.S. 1095 (1973), summarily aff’q 347 F.Supp. 453 (M.D.La. 1972).   

INTERROGATOERY NO. 15: 
  

State whether or not you are alleging that ander a single- 

member district system, a minority voter residing in a non- 

i9 

 



  

minority district should have to right to venue of his case in a 

minority district and the reasons for your answer. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Plaintiff-intervenors do 
  

not at this time allege that under a single member district 

system, a minority voter residing in a non-minority district 

should have the right to venue of his case in a minority 

district. 

I, Sherrilyn A. Ifill, attorney for plaintiff-intervenors 

Houston Lawyers’ Association, et al., declare that the foregoing 

is true and correct under penalty of perjury. 

Jad A Spe 
JULIUS LJ 7 /BANE SRS v 
EDS aL « IFILL 

NAACP No Defense & Educational 
Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

  

Of Counsel: GABRIELLE K. McDONALD 
Matthews & Branscomb 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 
A Professional Corporation Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 320-5055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Association, 

et al. 

Dated: March [7 7.1989 

20 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of March, 1989, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-intervenors 

Houston Lawyers' Association's First Response to Defendant- 

intervenor Wood's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production was mailed to counsel of record in this case by first 

class United States mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett J. Eugene Clements 

Brenda Hull Thompson John E. O'Neill 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang Evelyn V. Keys 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 Porter & Clements 

Dallas, TX 75225 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Rolando L. Rios 

Southwest Voter Registration 
Education Project Michael J. Wood 

201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 Attorney at Law 
San Antonio, TX 78205 440 Louisiana, Suite 200 

Houston, TX 77002 

Susan Finkelstein 

Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. Ken Oden 
201 N. St. Mary's, Sulte 521 Travis County Attorney 
San Antonio, TX 78205 P.O. Box 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & David R. Richards 
Cloutman, P.C. Special Counsel 

3301 Elm 600 W. 7th St. 
Dallas, TX 75226-9222 Austin, TX 78701 

Jim Mattox Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Mary F. Keller Hughes & Luce 
Renea Hicks 2800 Momentum Place 

Javier Guajardo 1717 Main Street 
Attorney General's Office Dallas, TX 75201 

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, TX 78711 

1 

  

n A Le 

Attorn&y for Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers' Association