State's Response to Appellant Entz's Motion for Divided Argument

    Office of the Attorney General 

State of Texas 

DAN MORALES 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

October 28, 1991 

VIA TELECOPY 
Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 

ATT'N: Jeralyn Maher 
Fifth Circuit - 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: LULAG, et al. v. Attorney General of Texas, et al., 
No. 90-8014 

Dear Ms. Maher: 

I received the telecopied oral argument motion of appellant Entz 

a little after 5:30 p.m. this afternoon. Mr. Windhorst indicated over 

the telephone earlier today that I should expedite the enclosed 

response by telecopying it to your attention. I also will place the 

original and three copies in regular United States mail tomorrow 
morning for later filing. 

Sincerely, 

(one Poh 
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 
ANEOU AY EMPEOYMENT OPPORTU MEY EMPEOYER  



  

w
a
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

VS. No. 90-8014 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF TEXAS, et al, 

Co
n 

Co
n 

Go
n 

Go
n 

Wo
n 

Co
nd
 
Co

n 
Co

n 
Lo
n 

Un
 

Defendants-Appellants. 

STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT ENTZ'S MOTION FOR DIVIDED 
ARGUMENT 

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

and the thirteen members of the Texas Judicial Districts Board, 

including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas sitting as 

Chairman, official-capacity defendants-appellants (collectively, "state" 

or "Texas") respond as follows to Appellant Entz's motion requesting 

that ten of the thirty minutes for oral argument be allotted to him at 

the expense of the state.* 

1 The principal defendants in this case are the fifteen state 

officials listed above. A principal issue at this point is the proper role 

to be affcrded the state's interest in the maintenance of its current 

system for electing state district judges. 

2. The Attorney General of Texas, not private attorneys 

representing individuals appearing in this case solely in their personal 

  

Indirectly through appellant Entz's lawyers earlier today, the state's lawyer was 
informed that appellant Wood appeared likely to file a motion also seeking ten of the 
thirty minutes for argument. The state has not yet received such a motion, or any other 
motion concerning oral argument, from appellant Wood. Nonetheless, in assessing 
appellant Entz's motion for time, the Court should keep in mind the likelihood that a 
similar plea will be forthcoming soon from appellant Wood. 

 



  

capacity (whose standing is based on their interest in protecting their 

incumbency as district judges), is the duly elected Texas official 

charged with the responsibility of representing the state and its 

interests in court. The Attorney: General is the only attorney 

appearing in this case with the authority to speak for the state -- and it 

is the state that is under attack. 

3. This circumstance amply justifies the Court's allotment of 

the overwhelming bulk of the time for oral argument to the Attorney 

General, not to private attorneys representing private interests. 

4. The Supreme Court of the United States, rejecting their 

formal entreaties, allotted no oral argument time to appellants Entz 

and Wood; however, the state does not seek to have this Court follow 

the Supreme Court's course. Instead, the state has indicated to 

appellant Entz directly and appellant Wood indirectly through 

appellant Entz that it would cede five minutes of time to them 

collectively. Any greater allotment threatens the continuity of the 

argument and its value for the Court. There is a likely need to reserve 

some time -- probably five minutes -- for rebuttal by the state. Thus, 

under the division recommended by the state, only twenty minutes 

would remain for its principal argument. Further reduction in this 

time -- to ten minutes as the appellants together apparently would 

have it -- is inadvisable in the state's view and would unnecessarily 

indulge the personal-capacity intervenors' passion to put themselves 

in an equivalent position to the elected Attorney General of Texas. 

Based upon the foregoing matters, the state urges the Court to 

deny appellant Entz's motion, as well as any similar motion filed by 

appellant Wood. 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

DAN MORALES 
Attorney General of Texas 

 WHLL PRYOR 
First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY F. KELLER 
Deputy Attorney General 

  

RENEA HICKS 
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 DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on the 29th day of October, 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, 7800 
N. Mopac, Suite 215, Austin, Texas 78750; Edward B. Cloutman, III, 
3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; E. Brice Cunningham, 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121, Dallas, Texas 75203; J. 
Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 3500 NCNB Center, 700 
Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & 
Luce, 1717 Main Street, Suite 2800, Dallas, Texas 75201; Jessica 
Dunsay Silver, Department of Justice, P. O. Box 66078, Washington, D. 
C. 20035-6078; Susan Finkelstein, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 405 N. 
St. Mary's, Suite 910, San Antonio, Texas 78205; David R. Boyd, Balch 
& Bingham, P. O. Box 78, Montgomery, Alabama 36101; Susan E. Russ, 

a. 

 



  

x 
N
e
t
 

Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, One Commerce Street, Suite 802, 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104; Fournier J. Gale, III, Maynard, Cooper, 
Frierson & Gale, 2400 AmSouth Tower - Harbert Plaza 1901 6th 
Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama 361010; Walter S. Turner, Office 
of the Attorney General, 11 South Union Street, Room 303, 
Montgomery, Alabama 36130; Tom Maness, Jefferson County 
Courthouse, Beaumont, Texas 77701; Seagal V. Wheatley, 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 711 Navarro, 
Sixth Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205; and Russell W. Miller, 3300 
Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002. 

(Done Wl,   
  

Renea Hicks