Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood's Original Answer

    THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Va NO. MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, Attorney General 
of the State of Texas, et al., 

Defendants 

SHAROLYN WOOD, Judge of the 

127TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 
of Harris County, Texas, 

Applicant for 
Intervention 

as Defendant. 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD'S 

ORIGINAL ANSWER 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW Sharolyn Wood, Judge of the 127th Judicial 

District Court of Harris County, Texas ("Intervenor Wood") and 

files this her Original Answer in response to the Plaintiffs’ 

First Amended Complaint in the above referenced cause Of action 

as follows: 

I. 

l. Intervenor Wood has filed her Motion to Intervene pursuant 

to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. This, her proposed Original Answer, represents the 

 



pleading setting forth her assertions and defenses that is 

required by Rule 24(c). In the event that this Court permits her 

to intervene in this cause, Intervenor Wood requests that this 

proposed answer be filed as her Original Answer in this cause. 

IX. 

De Intervenor Wood acknowledges that the League of United Latin 

American Citizens ("LULAC") consists of statewide and local 

organizations composed primarily of United States citizens of 

Mexican descent as alleged in paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Plain- 

tiffs' First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"). However, she 

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to'the truth ‘of the averments in the first paragraph of the 

Complaint about the citizenship and race of Plaintiffs Aquilla 

Watson, Christina Moreno, and James Fuller. 

3 Paragraph 2 of the Complaint contains only averments to 

which no responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent 

that it is construed to contain averments requiring a responsive 

pleading, Intervenor Wood denies them. 

4, To the extent that paragraph 3 of the Complaint is construed 

tc contain averments to which responsive pleadings are required, 

Intervenor Wood admits the averment in paragraph 3 that the Court 

has jurisdiction over this action. She is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to whether each of the 

cited statutory provisions provides sufficient jurisdiction. 

0 Intervenor Wood is without knowledge or information suffi-  



cient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in 

paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Complaint. She is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

averments in paragraph 10, except to the extent that those 

averments are admitted by the State Defendants. 

6. Intervenor Wood admits the averments in paragraph 11 and 12 

of the Complaint. 

7 Intervenor Wood 1s without knowledge or information suffi- 

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in the 

remaining paragraphs, 13-32, of the Ccmplaint to which a respon- 

sive pleading may be required and therefore denies them. 

8. In addition, in response to paragraph 26 of the Complaint, 

Intervenor Wood specifically denies that the at-large judicial 

election system causes an inequality in the opportunity of black 

or Hispanic voters to elect representatives of their choice, 

since state district Judges are not representatives of the 

electorate. 

J Intervenor Wood makes no contention or assertions regarding 

any other county of the state except Harris County. However, in 

response +to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Complaint, and with 

respect to Harris County alone, Intervenor Wood specifically 

denies that the present at large scheme of electing district 

Judges violates the civil rights of the Plaintiffs by diluting 

their votes. She further denies that the present at large 

election scheme results in a denial or abridgement of the right  



  

of the Plaintiffs to vote on account of their race or color in 

that they have less opportunity than other members of the 

electorate to elect candidates of their choice. Intervenor Wood 

asserts that such condition or effect does not exist in Harris 

County with the respect to the election of district judges. She 

also asserts that no violation of the Voting Rights Act or of the 

United States Constitution has occurred within Harris County with 

respect to the current method or scheme of electing district 

judges and that, therefore, no remedy is required or justified in 

order to alleviate a problem which does not exist within this 

county. 

10. Intervenor Wood also denies, with respect to paragraph 31 of 

the Complaint, that Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by the 

continuing violation of their rights in Harris County since she 

denies that there are any such violations in Harris County. She 

further denies that the present electoral scheme in Harris County 

is without any legitimate or compelling government interest. 

Ixl1. 

WHEREFORE, Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood 

respectfully requests that the Plaintiffs' cause of action be 

dismissed with respect to the system for electing district judges 

within Harris County and that judgment be entered in her favor 

and that she recover all other relief, both general and special, 

in law and in equity, to which she may show herself justly 

entitled. 

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & eT 

one. Clrrrients 

dl rncete 
Eugene Zits. 4 

oy No. 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600 

  

  

ATTORNEY FOR HARRIS COUNTY 

DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD 

By: 

Darrell Smith 
Attorney at Law 

Adm. No. 
10999 Interstate Hwy. 10, #905 
San Antonio, Texas 78230 

(512) 641-9944 

  

  

OF COUNSEL: 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

John E. O'Neill 

Evelyn V. Keyes 
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

(713) 226-0600 

Michael J. Wood 

Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 228-5105 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true 
foregoing Original Answer 

day of February, 1989, as fo 

Ken Oden 

Travis County Atto 
P.. OC. .Box~1748 

Austin, Texas 787 

David R. Richards 
Special Counsel 
600 W. 7th Street 

Austin, Texas 787 

Garrett, Thompson 
Attorneys at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suit 
Dallas, Texas 752 

Rolando L. Ruiz 

Attorney at Law 

201 N., St. Marv's, 
San Antonio, Texas 

Susan Finkelstein 

Attorney at Law 

201 NN. St. Mary's, 
San Antonio, Texas 

Renea Hicks 
Assistant Attorney 
P.O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 787 

Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 

P. O. Box. 2559 

Midland, Texas 79 

WO001/01/cej 

has been 

llows: 

rney 

67 

01 

& Craig 

e 800 

25 

Suite 221 

78205 

Suite 600 

78205 

General 

01 

702 

and. correct copy "of the 
served on all counsel of 

record by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 

Grebo 
  

Evelyn V. Ke¥es 
oyu 

7