Plaintiff-Intervenors' Request for Oral Hearing; Defendants' Response to Motion to Intervene and Request for Oral Hearing by HLA

    4 N 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

  

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

301 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 2050 

1800 FIRST CITY BANK TOWER AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870Il ONE ALAMO CENTER 

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78477 TELEPHONE Si2-320-50S5 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 

512-888-926 TELECOPIER Si2-320-5013 512-226-421 

January 20, 1989 

U. 8. District Clerk 

Western District of Texas 

Midland - Odessa Division 

301 U. 8. Courthouse 

200 E Wall 
Midland, TX 79701 

RE: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 
et al 
Civil Action No. MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Sir: 

I enclose herewith for filing in the above-styled matter the 
original and two of the following documents: 

1. Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Intervene, together 
with accompanying Order; 

2. Memorandum In Support of Plaintiff-Intervenors' 
Motion to Intervene; 

3. Complaint in Intervention; and 

4, Plaintiff-Intervenors' Request for Oral Hearing, 

together with accompanying Order. 

I would appreciate your file stamping the extra copy of the 
documents that I have enclosed and returning them to me in the 
enclosed self-addressed and stamped envelope. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely yours, 

MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 

A Professional Corporation 

CA ho)es 
ielle K. McDonald    

3GKMcgqg; kd 

 



  

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, 

VS. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS: JIM MATTOX, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS: JACK RAINS, SECRETARY 

OF SATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

ALL IN THE OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; 

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

THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, JOHN F. § 

S 
S 
S 
S 
S 
S 
S 
§ 
S 
S 
S 
S 

  

ONION, JR.; RON CHAPMAN; THOMAS 
J. STOVALL, JR.; JAMES F, 
CLAWSON, JR.; JOE E. KELLY; JOE 
B. EVINS; SAM B. PAXSON; 
WELDON KIRK; CHARLES J. 
MURRAY; RAY D. ANDERSON; JOE 
SPURLOCK II, ALL IN THEIR 
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS 
OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BOARD 
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

DEFENDANTS. 

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING 
  

NOW COME Plaintiff-Intervenors' and respectfully request 

this Court for an oral hearing with respect to their Motion to 

Intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenors submit that an oral hearing 

will provide an opportunity to best explain the substantial 

interest they have in the subject of this case, the effect that 

the resolution of this case will have on their interests, and 

especially, their need to intervene 1n order to adequately 

 



represent the interests they assert. 

Respectfully submitted, 

frceer /L 
Of Counsel: TELLE K. McDONALD 

* State Bar 1.D. ££ 13546000 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 

A Professional Corporation Austin, Texas 78701 
Phone: (512) 320-5055 

  

Attorneys for 
Plaintiff-Intervenors 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

1 hereby certify that a trve and correct copy of the 
foregoing Request for Oral Hearing has been duly mailed to 
counsel for the parties, correctly addressed, as shown below, and 
postage prepaid, via certified mail, return receipt request nd 
placed in an official depository of the U. S. Mail on this 
day of January, 1989: 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang Rolando L. Rios 
Attorneys at Law Attorney at Law 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 201. 8, St. Mary's, Suite 521 
Dallas, TX 15225 San Antonio, TX 782085 

Attorneys of Plaintiff Watson Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Susan Finkelstein Renea Hicks 
Attorney at Law Asst. Attorney General 

201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 600 P. OO, Box 12548 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Capitol Station 
Attorney for Plaintiff Moreno Austin, TX 78711 

Attorney for Defendants 

GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 

Attorney for Intervenors, 
Houston Lawyers' Ass'n, et 

3GKMch; kd 

01-20-89  



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MO 88 CA 154 

VS. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, et al., 

Defendants. CO
R 

LO
» 

LO
N 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

LO
R 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND 
REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING BY HOUSTON LAWYERS' 

ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 

The defendants® respond as follows to the Motion to Intervene 

and Request for Oral Hearing filed by the Houston Lawyers’ Association 

and six individuals (collectively, "Houston Lawyers’ Association"): 

The defendants, without accepting the accuracy of all its 

assertions, do not oppose the motion for intervention by the Houston 

Lawyers’ Association; however, the timeliness factor applicable to 

intervention motions raises some obvious concerns because of the 

already short deadlines for completing discovery and commencing trial 

in this action. Therefore, the defendants join in the request for an oral 

hearing on this motion to explore the unopposed intervention's effect on 

the schedule for the case and to consider at what point potential future 

interventions might be considered untimely. 

  

* On January 12, 1989, the Court dismissed William Clements, Governor of the State 

of Texas, without prejudice. Under Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the caption in the pleadings now should be in the form LULAC Council 
#4434, et al. v. Jim Mattox, et al. Under Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Michael J. McCormick in his official capacity as a member of the 
Judicial Districts Board of the State of Texas should be substituted as a defendant 
for John F. Onion, Jr., because Judge McCormick has replaced Judge Onion, who 
retired, as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. 

 



  

I certify that on this 30th day of January, 1989, I sent a copy of 
Response to Motion to Intervene 

for Oral Hearing by Houston Lawyers’ Association, et al., by United 

postage prepaid, to each of the following: 

Suite 521, San Antonio, Texas 78205; 

and Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, 

Texas 78701. 

the foregoing 

States mail, 

Rolando Rios, 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

  

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant a General 

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Defendants’ 

first class, 

201 N. St. Mary's, 

and Request 

  

Renea Hicks 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 

AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC), 

COUNCIL #4434, LULAC COUNCIL 

#4451, CHRISTINA MORENO, 

AQUILLA WATSON, JAMES FULLER, 

JUDGE MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR., 

and LULAC (Statewide), 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

JESSE OLIVER, FRED TINSLEY, 
and JOAN WINN WHITE, 

Intervenor-Plaintiffs, 

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, Governor of MO-88-CA-154 
the State of Texas, JIM 
MATTOX, Attorney General of 
the State of Texas, JACK 
RAINS, Secretary of State of 
the State of Texas, All in 
their official capacities, 
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Texas, JOHN F. ONION, JR., 

Court of Criminal Appeals, 
RON CHAPMAN, Presiding Judge 

of the 1st Administrative 
Judicial Region, THOMAS J. 
STOVALL, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 2nd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JAMES F. 
CLAWSON, JR., Presiding Judge 
of the 3rd Administrative 
Judicial Region; JOE E. KELLY, 
Presiding Judge of the 4th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE B. EVINS, 
Presiding Judge of the 5th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, SAM B. PAXSON, W

N
W
 

WA
 
W
W
 

WA
 
W
A
D
A
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

A
 

A
 

A
 
W
A
 

WA
 

A
 

WA
 

WA
 
A
W
A
 

A 
A
 

A
 

WA
 

A
 

A
 

A
 

A
 

IA
 

A
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

A
 

A
 

A
 
A
A
 
W
A
 

WA
 

=
 

EXHIBIT 
HAM 

  

 



  

. 4 (8 

Presiding Judge of the 6th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, WELDON KIRK, 
Presiding Judge of the 7th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, CHARLES J. MURRAY, 

Presiding Judge of the 8th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, RAY D. ANDERSON, 
Presiding Judge of the 9th 
Administrative Judicial 
Region, JOE SPURLOCK, II, 
President, Texas Judicial 
Council, All in their 
official capacities as 
members of the Judicial 
Districts Board of the State 

of Texas, 
WA
 
A
W
W
 

WA
 

WA
 

Ww
W 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 

WA
 
A
W
W
A
 

WA
 
A
W
D
 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 
  

I. Introduction 

l. Intervenors/plaintiffs Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley 

and Joan Winn White ("Intervenors") are former state district 

judges of Dallas County, and are Black citizens of the State of 

Texas. They bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 

1971, 1973, 1983 and 1988 to redress a denial, under color of 

state law, of rights, privileges or immunities secured to 

plaintiffs by the said laws and by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

2 Plaintiffs seek -a declaratory judgment that the 

existing at large scheme of electing district judges in Dallas 

County of the State of Texas violates plaintiffs' civil rights 

in that such method illegally and/or unconstitutionally dilutes 

 



  

® C a 

the voting strength of Mexican-American and Black electors: 

plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction prohibiting the calling, 

holding, supervising or certifying any future elections for 

district judges under the present at large scheme in Dallas 

County; plaintiffs seek the formation of a judicial districting 

scheme by which district judges in the target counties are 

elected from districts are single member districts; plaintiffs 

seek costs and attorneys' fees. 

II. Jurisdiction 

3. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and 

(4), upon causes of action arising from 42 U.S.C. Section 1971, 

1973, 1983, and 1988, and under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Declaratory 

relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and 2202 and by 

Rule 57, F.R.C.P. 

III. Plaintiffs/Intervenors 

4. Plaintiffs Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley and Joan 

Winn White are Black citizens and registered voters of Dallas 

County, Texas. They are qualified to vote for district judges 

of Dallas County. Plaintiffs were appointed district judges who 

lost an at large election to a white opponent in Dallas County, 

Texas. 

 



  

IV. Defendants 

5e Defendant William Clements is the Governor of the 

State of Texas, and is the chief executive officer of the state 

and as such is charged with the responsibility to execute the 

laws of the state. Defendant Jim Mattox is the Attorney-General 

of the State of Texas, and is the chief law enforcement officer 

of the state and as such is charged with the responsibility to 

enforce the laws of the state. Defendant Jack Rains is the 

Secretary of State of the State of Texas, and is the chief 

elections officer of the state and as such is charged with the 

responsibility to administer the election laws of the state. 

Defendants Thomas R. Phillips, John F. Onion, Ron Chapman, 

Thomas J. Stovall, James F. Clawson, Jr., Joe E. Kelly, Joe B. 

Evins, Sam M. Paxson, Weldon Kirk, Charles J. Murray, Ray D. 

Anderson, and Joe Spurlock, II are members of the Judicial 

Districts Board created by Article V, Section 7a of the Texas 

Constitution, and pursuant to Article 24.941ff, Texas Revised 

Civil Statutes, have the duty to reapportion judicial districts 

within the State of Texas. 

V. Factual Allegations 

6. District judges are elected either from judicial 

districts which are coterminous with and wholly contained within 

a county, or from judicial districts which may be composed of 

several entire counties. 

 



Cc © 

7. In those counties which contain more than one 

judicial district, the present election system is an at large 

scheme with the equivalent of numbered places, the majority rule 

requirement, and staggered terms. 

8. The following counties upon information and 

belief, contain multiple judicial districts and a sufficiently 

compact minority population for the drawing of at least one 

majority combined minority single member district. 

Harris Lubbock 
Dallas Fort Bend 
Ector Smith 
McClennan Brazos 
Tarrant Brazoria 
Midland Taylor 
Travis Wichita 
Jefferson Angelina 
Galveston Gregg 
Bell 

oS. The above counties contain some 190 judicial 

districts, and a combined minority population of almost 30%; 

however, only 10 or 5.3% of the 190 district judges are 

minority. 

10. The following counties contain multiple judicial 

districts and sufficient Black population for the drawing of at 

least one majority-Black single member district: 

Harris =. Galveston 

Dallas Smith 
Tarrant Bell 

Jefferson McClennan 
Travis Gregg 
Brazos Fort Bend  



® 4 CG 

  

ll. The above counties contain some 164 judicial 

districts, and a Black population of 16.4%; however, only 7 or 

4.3% of the 164 district judges are Black. 

12. The following counties contain multiple judicial 

districts and sufficient Hispanic population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-hispanic single member district: 

Harris Ector 
Tarrant Lubbock 

Galveston Fort Bend 

Dallas 

Travis 

13. The above counties contain some 148 judicial 

districts, and a Hispanic population of 15.4%; however, only 4 

or 2.7% of the 148 district judges are Hispanic. 

14. The following judicial districts contain multiple 

counties and sufficient minority population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-minority single member districts: 

  

Judicial District County 

81st, 218th Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, LaSalle 
& Wilson 

36th, 156th, 343rd Aransas, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen 
& San Patricio 

22nd, 207th Caldwell, Comal & Hays 

24th, 135th, 267th Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, 
Refugio & Victoria 

64th, 242nd Castro, Hale & Swisher 

34th, 205th, 210th Culberson, El Paso & Hudspeth 

15, The above counties contain some 15 judicial 

 



  

® 4 Cc © 

districts, and a combined minority population of 44.32%; 

however, only 1 or 6.7% of the 15 district judges is Black or 

Hispanic. 

16. The following judicial districts contain multiple 

counties and sufficient hispanic population for the drawing of 

at least one majority-hispanic single member district: 

  

Judicial District County 

81st, 218th Atascosa, Frio, Karnes, LaSalle 
& Wilson 

36th, 156th, 343rd4d Aransas, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen 
& San Patricio 

24th, 135th, 267th Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, 
Refugio & Victoria 

64th, 242nd Castro, Hale & Swisher 

34th, 205th, 210th Culberson, El Paso & Hudspeth 

17. The above counties contain some 13 judicial 

districts, and a hispanic population of 42.77%; however, only 

l or 7.7% of the 13 district judges is hispanic. 

18. Upon information and belief, if single members 

districts were drawn in the above named areas, the minority 

group is sufficiently large and compact so that districts could 

be drawn in which minorities would constitute a majority. 

19. Upon information and belief, in the above named 

areas minorities are politically cohesive. 

20. Upon information and belief in the above cited 

areas, the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to 

 



  

% 1 C(.. @ 

enable it -- in the absence of special circumstances, such as 

the minority candidate running unopposed -- usually to defeat 

the minority's preferred candidate. 

21. Upon information and belief, in the above 

challenged areas, the at large election scheme interacts with 

social and historical conditions to cause an in-equality in the 

opportunity of hispanic or black voters to elect representatives 

of their choice as compared to white voters. 

22. Depending upon the evidence developed in 

discovery, some of the above named areas may be deleted and some 

unnamed areas may be added. 

VI. Causes of Action 

23. The present at large scheme of electing district 

judges, intentionally created and/or maintained with a discrimi- 

natory purpose, violates the civil rights of plaintiffs by 

diluting their votes. 

24. The present at large scheme of electing district 

judges resuls in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote 

of the plaintiffs on account of their race or color in that the 

political processes leading to nomination or election of 

district judges are not equally open to participation by 

plaintiffs in that they have less opportunity than other members 

of the electorate to elect candidates of their choice. 

 



  

VII. Immunities 

25. Qualified and absolute immunity do not protect 

the defendants because plaintiffs seek only injunctive and 

declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. Furthermore, absolute 

immunity does not protect defendants because they do not act in 

any of the capacities which receive immunity at common law. The 

defendants are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity 

because plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief 

and attorneys' fees. 

VIII. Equities 

26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other 

than the judicial relief sought herein, and unless the defen- 

dants are enjoined from continuing the present at large scheme, 

plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by the continuing 

violation of their statutory and constitutional rights. +he 

illegal and unconstitutional conditions complained of preclude 

the adoption of remedial provisions by the electorate. The 

present electoral scheme is without any legitimate or compelling 

governmental interest and is arbitrarily and capriciously 

cancels, dilutes and minimizes the force and effect of the 

plaintiffs’ voting strength. 

IX. Attorneys! Fees 

27. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. Sections 1973-1 (e) 

and 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable 

 



  

4 § ( ©® 

attorneys' fees as part of their costs. 

X. Prayer 

28. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs pray 

that defendants be cited to appear and answer herein; that a 

declaratory judgment be issued finding that the existing method 

of electing district judges is unconstitutional and/or illegal, 

null and void; that the defendants be permanently enjoined from 

calling, holding, supervising or certifying any further 

elections for district judges under the present at large scheme; 

that the Court order that district judges in the targeted 

counties be elected in a system which contains single member 

districts; adjudge all costs against defendants, including 

reasonable attorneys' fees; retain jurisdiction to render any 

and all further orders that this Court may from time to time 

deem appropriate; and grant any and all further relief both at 

law and in equity to which these plaintiffs may show themselves 

to be entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB 

& CLOUTMAN, P.C. 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 
(214) 939-9222 

By: Swyr aad 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
  

10 

 



( @ 

E. BRICE CUNNINGHAM 

Attorney at Law 

777 So. R.L. Thornton Frwy. 
Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 
(214) 428-3793 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument has been served upon counsel of record, by 

placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 

Edward B. Cloutman, 
  

 



  

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, 

Vs. 

WILLIAM CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS: JIM MATTOX, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS: JACK RAINS, SECRETARY 

OF SATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, CIVIL ACTION NO. MO-88-CA-154 
  

S 
S 
S 
S 
S 
S$ 
§ 
S 
S 
S 
S 
S 

ALL IN THE OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; § 

THOMAS R. PHILLIPS, JOHN F. § 

ONION, JR.; RON CHAPMAN; THOMAS § 

J. STOVALL, JR.; JAMES TF. N) 

CLAWSON, JR.; JOE E. KELLY; JOE § 

B. EVINS; SAM B. PAXSON; S 

WELDON KIRK; CHARLES J. S 

MURRAY; RAY D. ANDERSON; JOE S 

SPURLOCK II, ALL IN THEIR § 

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS § 

OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BOARD § 

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, S 

S 
S DEFENDANTS. 

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING 
  

  

BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day came on to be considered 

the Request for Oral Hearing of Plaintiff-Intervenors in the 

above-entitled and numbered cause, and the Court having 

considered same and being of the opinion that same should be 

granted; 

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that a 

hearing be and is hereby set on the day of 

 



1989, at 
  

  

M, 

SIGNED this 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE