Motion for Interim Relief and Stay Pending Appeal

    ) 

| » 
National Office 

A A Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 
   

March 5, 1993 

Hon. Lucius L. Bunton, III 
United States Courthouse 
Western District of Texas 
200 E. Wall 

Suite 301 
Midland, TX 79701 

Re: LULAC v. Morales 
MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Judge Bunton: 

Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of the plaintiffs’ Motion 
for Interim Relief and Stay in the above referenced case, which was 
filed today with the clerk. 

  

for Plaintiff- 
Intervenors 

Houston Lawyers Assoc. ef al. 

cc: All counsel of record 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208 
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015 

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 

 



® National Office 

A A Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

March 5, 1993 

Mr. John Neil 

Clerk 

United States District Court 

Western District of Texas 
Midland-Odessa Division 

P.O. Box 10708 

200 E. Wall 

Room 316 

Midland, TX 79702 

Re: LULAC v. Morales 

MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed please find for filing plaintiffs’ Motion for Interim Relief and Stay in the 
above referenced case. 

All counsel have been served. 

for Plaintiff-intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Assoc. ef al. 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208 
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015 

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), COUNCIL #4434 
et al., Plaintiffs, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION, 
et al, Plaintiff-Intervenors 

V. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL DAN MORALES, 

et al., State Defendants 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD and 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, Defendant-Intervenors. 

  

MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND STAY 

PENDING APPEAL 

  

Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors in the above captioned case respectfully move this 

Court to order interim relief for the forthcoming 1994 district judge elections in all counties 

involved in this litigation,! and as grounds therefore state as follows: 

1. This case was filed by Afiican American and Mexican American voters in 1988. 

This court decided the case in favor of plaintiffs on November 8, 1989, holding that the 

countywide method of electing district judges in the counties at issue violates Section 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, in that it denies minority voters an equal 

  

'The counties at issue are Bexar, Dallas, Ector, Harris, Jefferson, Lubbock, Midland, Tarrant, 
and Travis.  



  

opportunity to participate in district judge elections and elect their candidates of choice. 

2. On May 11, 1991, a panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s 

decision on the ground that the election of trial court judges is not covered by Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act, as amended. The panel did not address the factual evidence 

adduced at trial that the current system discriminates against African American and 

Mexican American voters. The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, held that judicial elections are 

not covered by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That decision was reversed by the 

Supreme Court on June 21, 1991 and remanded to the Fifth Circuit panel "for further 

proceedings consistent with [its] opinion." Houston Lawyers’ Association v. Attorney General 

of Texas, 115 L.Ed. 2d 379, 388 (1991). 

3. On January 27, 1993, the Fifth Circuit panel upheld the district court’s opinion. 

The panel held that the current countywide method of electing district judges in all but one 

of the counties at issue,’ violates the Voting Rights Act and denies African American and 

Mexican American voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and 

elect their candidates of choice as district judges. The panel opinion comprehensively 

reviewed the district court’s findings on a county-by-county basis. 

4. On February 11, 1993, a majority of the Fifth Circuit ordered rehearing en banc, 

on its own motion, vacating the January 27, 1993 panel opinion. Oral argument has been 

set for the week of May 24, 1993. 

5. On March 1, 1993, the Attorney General submitted a plan to the Texas 

Legislature and the Governor of Texas, which proposes the election of district judges from 

  

“The Fifth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s opinion with regard to Travis County. 

2 

 



  

sub-districts in counties with a population of more than 100,000 persons. See Exhibit A, 

attached. The Attorney General's plan proposes that the Legislature shall determine 

whether district judges shall be elected from Legislative districts, Commissioners’ Court 

districts or Justice of the Peace districts. In the statement accompanying his plan the 

Attorney General concluded "it would be impossible to do worse than the current [district 

judge election] system." Id. 

6. Since the initial filing of this case, three general elections for district judge 

candidates have been held. The current at-large method of electing district judges was 

found to discriminate against African American and Hispanic voters four years ago. Thus, 

district judges were elected under an election scheme that violates the Voting Rights Act 

in 1990 and 1992. In both those elections, minority voters and candidates were unable to 

participate equally in the election of district judges in eight counties in Texas. 

7. The next general election for district judges is scheduled for November, 1994 with 

a primary to be held on March 10, 1994. The filing period for the 1994 election 

commences on December 3, 1993 and ends on January 2, 1994. See Tex. Elec. Code 

Section 172.023 (a)(b). | 

8. Because argument of this case will not be heard until the end of May, 1993, and 

because this court can reasonably anticipate that at least one of the losing parties will seek 

review of this case by the United States Supreme Court following the Fifth Circuit’s en 

banc decision, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved finally in time for the 

commencement of the filing period for the next election. See Letter of David C. Godbey, 

Attorney for Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz, attached as Exhibit B. Even if 

 



  

no party seeks Supreme Court review of the Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling, this case must 

still return to the district court for a full remedial hearing. Thus, minority voters face the 

prospect that yet another district judge election will be held in violation of the Voting 

Rights Act, despite favorable rulings in the District Court, U.S. Supreme Court and now 

the Fifth Circuit, which support the plaintiffs’ claims. 

9. Moreover, because Sven the Attorney General -- the principal defendant in the 

litigation -- has stated publicly on numerous occasions that the current method of electing 

district judges is unacceptable, the continued election of district judges using this system 

undermines the integrity of the judiciary and seriously threatens public confidence in the 

state judicial process. Yet another district judge election under the current system will 

constitute an untenable affront to the rights of minority voters in Texas. 

10. Time is of the essence. Although the candidate filing period does not 

commence until December 3, 1993, judicial candidates, particularly African American 

judicial candidates in unusually large election districts like Harris and Dallas Counties must 

decide early on whether they will seek judicial office. Non-incumbent candidates for 

judicial office must raise large sums of money in Harris County, for example, in order to 

mount a credible campaign.’ Campaign contributions, not the qualifications of the 

candidates, often determine the outcome of judicial elections in Texas. Hill, "Taking Texas 

Judges Out of Politics: An Argument for Merit Selection." 40 Baylor Law Review 339, 341 

(1989). Minority candidates whe wish to mount a credible judicial campaign will need to 

  

‘In recognition of this fact, Attorney General Morales has proposed a series of campaign 
finance reforms for district judge elections. See Exhibit B. 

4 

 



  

decide whether to challenge an incumbent judge well in advance of the filing period. 

11. Moreover, even this motion once ruled upon by this court may become the 

subject of time consuming appellate litigation. 

12. The harm to minority voters that will result from the implementation of yet 

another district judge election under the current election scheme compels this court to 

grant interim relief. See Dillard v. Crenshaw, 640 F.Supp. 1347, 1362 (M.D. Ala. 1986). 

13. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court convene a hearing as soon as is 

practicable to select appropriate interim relief for the 1994 elections. In the alternative, 

plaintiffs request that this court adopt a sub-district plan consistent with the plan proposed 

by the Attorney General, or in accordance with the plan proposed by the plaintiff- 

intervenors as set out in Exhibit C. 

14. Should this court decline the plaintiffs’ request for the imposition of an interim 

election plan, plaintiffs’ respectfully request that this court enjoin implementation of the 

1994 elections pending the final disposition of this case. 

 



WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-intervenors respectfully request that this court grant 

this motion for interim relief. 

ROLANDO L. RIOS, Esq. 

115 E. Travis Street 

Suite 1024 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

(512) 222-2102 

WILLIAM L. GARRETT, Esq. 
8300 Douglas 
Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 
(214) 369-1952 

EDWARD B. CLOUTMAN, Esq. 

3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, TX 75226-1637 

(214) 939-9222 

March 2 , 1993 

Respectfully submitted, 

ELAINE R. JONES, "Esq. He 

SHERRILYN A. IFILL, Esq. 
99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, NY 10013 

(212) 219-1900 

GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD, Esq. 
7800 N. Mopac 
Suite 215 

Austin, TX 78750 
(512) 346-6801 

 



  

EXHIBIT A 

 



—     

Post-It™ brand fax transmi‘tal 

  

7671 | ot pages > 
  i 

  

  
dno 
Co ' lh ac = OMG in Pry 
  

Dept. * 413-30%4 
    ana RES     fox? Hin. nl2 
  

Comprehensive iis 
Judicial Selection iil 

Process Reform 4 fe 

THE AT rc IRIN EAY 
C) 
IT] 
Z 
(1) 

oN 
bg 
[- 
S 

O
F
F
I
C
E
 

O
F
 

DAN M SBE   512 4E3 20863 PAGE.PA1



C) » 
restos Judicial 
id 

  

        
®) 

0 ©) 

: Selection 
> 

ren. Reform 

O00 In counties with a populalion of more ten 

100,000, this proposal calls for the election of 
state district judges from subdisiricis by place. 

Campaign Financ: 

Reform for 

District Judges 

  

0 Individual contributions limited © a maximum of 
$1,000. 

Q Political action committee contributions limited 
to a maximum of $1,000. 

0 Additional contributor disclos:ui-e information. 

0 Judges required to file additional financial 
reporis. 

0 Prohibition on contributions to unopposed 
judicial candidates. 

3 Maximum spending limits of £50,000 per 
election. 

1 Enhanced enforcement of campaign finance 
regulations. 

0 Judge's supplemental financial clisclosure 
required. 

MRR 2 + 3711:1285 512 463 2862 PRGE.QBZ2 

 



    

Tae - 

Office of the Attorney General 

State of Texas 

DAN MORALES 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: FONDUSEK @ 512-483-2082 
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1983 PATRICIA GUILLERMO @ 512-463-2106 

MORALES PROPOSES REFORM CF STA E DISTRICT JUDGE 
SELECTION METHOD, CANIPAIGM FINANCING 

Texas Attorney General Dan Morales on Mon jay proposed a comprehensive 

reform of the method of selecting State District Judges that would ensure fair and 

equal representation for all citizens of Texas. 

The reform package includes the election cf (State District Judges from 

subdistricts by place within counties of 100,000 population or rnore, and reform of 

campaign financing for those electiors. 

Morales submitted his proposals 10 Gov. Ann Richards, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, 

Speaker of the House Pete Laney and members of the Legislature. 

The Attorney General said his proposals will incrzase minority representation on 

the benches of State District Courts and eliminate the domination by special interests in 

the election of those judges. 

"Accordingly, | recommend that the Legislature adopt a system where District 

Judges are selected from subdistricts: by place, in every Texas county with a population 

of more than 100,000," Morales said. "It is properly th prerogative of the Legislature 

and the representatives from each affected courty to deter nine whether the process of 

electing their judges should utilize the districts of Stale Representatives, County 

Commissioners, Justices of the Peace or other districts.’ 

Morales also proposed eight changes to campa gn finance laws affecting State 

District Judges. The changes include limiting dollar co tributions from individuals and 

political action committees to $1,000 each; limiting spencling on state district judicial 

races to $50,000 for the primary election and $50,000 for the jeneral election; requiring 

additional information about contributors, such as the contributor's employer and 

occupation; and, requiring candidates to file all disclosure: statements with their local 

court clerks, so as to allow local and state access to the information. 

Other elements of Morales’ campaign finance reform include prohibiting 

unopposed district judicial candidates from accepting campaign contributions; 

increasing enforcement of campaign finance laws; and requiring additional information 

from candidates regarding the sources of their income velue of assets, their financial 

debts and from whom they have received gifts. 

-MOre- 

512/463-2100 P.O. BOX 12548 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 
BRENTEP OINRECT HY PARR AN EQ AL FMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

MAR 2:3 11125 518 4E3 20E2 PAGE .BQO2 

 



  

MORALES 2-2-2 

"We must eliminate once and for all the perception that justice is for sale in 

Texas," Morales said. "The taint of political favcritism and the influence of big money 

are doing immeasurable harm to the public's faith and confidence in our judicial system. 

My package of proposals will give Texas voters a judiciary free of undue political 

influence and free of obligations to special interests. The Legislature may want to 

consider expanding these reforms to include all judicial elections.” 

In January, a three-judge panel of the 5th LI.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 

the at-large system of electing State District Judges in eight urban Texas counties was 

unfair to minoritiss and a violation of the U.S. Voting Flights Act The U.S. Supreme 

Court also has said the Voting Rights Act applies to judicial elections. 

On February 5, Morales announced that he would present a judicial selection 

reform package to the Legislature. He assigned his staff ‘0 research the issue. 

The Attorney General's staff visited with dozens of experts on judicial selection 

from across the state and reviewed thousands of documens 2xamining options which 

might yield a state judiciary more reflective of the diversity found in Texas. Staff also 

visited with the Attorneys General of Georgia, Arkans:s, Mississippi, Louisiana and 

lllinois, states which have successfully resolved similar lit gation. 

"Today we are living with a judicial selection methocl that may have served us 

well when it was established almost 120 years ago, but now fails us in many key 

respects.” Morales said. "We must change the system. ' have recommended that 

district judges be elected rather than appointed. Even though some: states use a merit 

selection or a se ection and retention system, | firmly bel eve: this is an option which the 

vast majority of Texans oppose. 

“Two recent statewide refererdums have shown that the majority of Texans 

share my conviction that the judicial process should remain linked to the right to vote. | 

believe that elections are particularly in keeping with the Texas tradition of autonomy 

and self governance.” 

Morales said he will conduct public hearings on his proposal this week in the two 

counties that will be most affected — Callas and Harris. 

The public: hearing in Harris County will be: at 2 p.rn., Wednesday, March 3, 1993 

at the South Texas College of Law, 1203 San Jacinto, Houston. 

The public hearing in Dallas Ccunty will bi at 2 p.in., Friday, March 5, 1993 a the 

J. Erik Johnsson Central Library, 1515 Young at Ervay Sreet, Dallas. 

 



  

yy UUW [Cr Veo oa vu PO EE kV hm TV aU 

    

HARRIS COUNTY 
STATE DISTRICT JUDGES* 
    

    
  

  

  

  

  

  
  

    

 



STX ATUTLY General 

DALLAS COUNTY 
STATE DISTRICT JUDGES* 

  

  

  

  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
    

SIR NR 

SAN (on) a Gat ves QO) J 

SHC Re TRS  



HISPANIC 

HISPANIC 

STATE DISTRICT 
POPULATION JUDGES 

  

  

19.9% 10.8% 

    

        
  

POPULATION 
  

  

19.2% 

    

      
    

 



TEXAS COUNTIES BY 1990 POPULATION 

  

: PCT PCT PCT 
NUMBER OF JUDGESHIPS SHARED TOTAL HISPANIC BLACK MIRORITY 

} RANK COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGES WITH OTHER COUNTIES COMMENTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION 

re 1 HARRIS 59 2,818,199 22.9 19.2 41.6 
J 2 DALLAS 37 1,852,810 17.0 19.9 36.6 
: 3 BEXAR 19 : 1,185,394 49.7 7.1 56.6 
- 4 TARRANY 29 1,170,103 12.0 12.0 23.8 

5 EL PASO 11 3 see footnote 1 591,610 63.6 3.7 73.0 ; 
3 6 TRAVIS 13 £76,407 21.1 11.0 31.7 

7 HIDALGO 7 383,545 85.2 0.2 85.4 
8 NUECES e 1 ses footnote 2 291.148 §2.2 4.4 56.3 
S DENTON 5 273,525 7.0 5.0 11.8 l 

10 COLLIN 4 264,036 6.9 4.1 10.9 
11 CAMERON 5 5 see footnote 3 260,120 81.9 0.3 82.1 2 
12 JEFFERSON 8 239,397 5.3 31.1 36.1 ® 
13 FORT BEND 3 225,421 19.5 20.7 39.7 : 
14 LUBBOCK 6 1 see footnote 4 222,636 22.9 7.7 30.4 
15 GALVESTON S 217,399 14.2 17.6 31.5 ) 
16 BRAZORIA 4 1 see footnote 5 191,707 17.6 8.3 25.7 
17 BELL 4 1 see footnote 6 191,088 13.1 18.9 31.4 
18 MCLENNAN 4 189,123 12.5 15.6 27.9 
19 MONTGOMERY 5 2 see footnote 7 182,201 7.3 4.3 11.5 
20 SMITH 4 1 see footnote B 151,309 5.9 20.9 26.6 

22 WEBB K | 1 see footnote 9 133,239 93.9 0.1 93.9 
23 WICHITA 3 : 122,378 8.0 8.2 17.6 
24 BRAZOS J 121,862 13.7 11.2 24.7 
25 TAYLOR 4 1 see footnote 10 119,655 14.6 6.3 20.8 
26 ECTOR 4 118,934 31.4 4.7 35.9 
71 MIDLAND 3 10.511 22.4 7.8 20.0 
28 GREGG 3 104,934 3.6 19.0 Z¢.5 

The 34th, 205th and 210th District Courts also serve Culberson and Hudspeth counties. 
ine 1USTN DISIricl LOuri ajisv Serves Remedy aid RICUEIY CUbiLIca, 
A11 fiva district courts also serve Willacy County. | A 
The 72nd District Court also serves Crosby County. 
The 23rd District Court alsa serves Matagorda and Wharton counties. 
The 27th District Court also serves Lampasas County. 
The 9th District Court also serves Polk, San Jacinto and Waller counties. 
The 2nd 9th District Court also serves Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity counties. 
The 114th Oistrict Court also serves Wood County. 
The 49th District Court also serves Zapata County. 
The 42nd District Court also serves Callahan and Coleman counties. N

L
 

Q
U
E
 

~
S
N
I
A
N
D
W
D
N
 

-f
 

=
 

» 

0 SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS AND CAN MORALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 



" x ‘ 2 oh thd te + NA 

i; 1 . 

  

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFCRM 

For State District Court Judicial Races 

Attorney General Recommendations: 

1. INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 
- $1,000 

Individual contributions will be limited to $500 in the orimary election 
and $500 in the general election, for a total of $1,00), ir: a State District 
Court race. Currently, there are no limitat.ons on contritutiors in 
state judicial races. 

2. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITED TO 
A MAXIMUM OF $1,000 
PAC contributions will be limited to $500 in the pr.mary election 
and $500 in the general election. for a total of $1,00), iti a State District 
Court race. Currently, there are no limitations on AC contributions in 
state judicial races. i 

3. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE .NFORMATION 
For each contribution of $50 or more, a car«lidate rust obtain from the 
contributcr and disclose, in addition to all informa jor. required under 
current law, the full name and address of the contribu tor's employer, if 
any, together with the contributor's occupaiion ancl job title. If this 
information is not provided by the contributor, the contribution must be 
‘returned. 

. 

4. JUDGES REQUIRED TO FILE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTS 
State District Court Judges and, or judicial candid: tes will be required to file 
a campaign finance report and :inancial disclosure report with the Texas 
Ethics Commission , the local filing authority, and with the clerk of the court 
on which the judge serves or a candidate seeks ele:tion. Currently, 
campaign disclosure requirements are limited pririarily to filing with local 
county derks. 

5. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNCPPOSED JUDICIAL 
CANDIDATES 
State District Judicial candidates would be :orohibi ed from soliciting or 
accepting a political contribution after the filing deadline for an election 
and until six months after that election if that judicial cardidate is unopposed 
for election, unless on the filing deadline the candidat: has unpaid 
campaign debts that may be repaid by political contributions. Currently, 
there are no such restrictions or: unopposed candiclates. 

MOP ~o Yrs LT es = fir 2 ol ei 1 Crh ] 

 



‘old 40d ZULY SLX A. Cy General wjulu-ulLo 

  

6. MAXIMUM SPENDNG LIMITS OF $50,000 PER ELECTION 
This will establish statutorily impesed or candidat 2 imposed spending limits 
of $50,000 in the primary election and $50,000 in the g2neral election 
(dependent upon constitutional accommodation). 

7. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
REGULATIONS 
Campaign finance regulations must inclucie string :nt sanctions and adequate 
provisions for enforcement. Recent proposals by the “Jexas Ethics 
Commission regarding fines for late filings of repcrts and amendments are 
examples of much needed reforms. 

8. JUDGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL DISCI OSURE REQUIRED 
Require judges and judicial candidates (arid, by thm, for their spouse and 
any dependents) to disclose the following informa ior. on a supplement to 
the financial disclosure report already required by sta ute: 

(a) for the past seven years, the name of any aw firm in which 
the person filing the report ("filer") hs beer. a member, and 
the name of any lawyer (s) wiih whick: the filer has been 
associated as part of a partnership, professional corporation 
or other business entity formed for th: purpose of practicing 
law; and the date and duration of suc.: memaership-or 
association; 2 

(b) the nature of the business of any sole sroprictorship, 
partnership, privately held corporation, juin! venture, or any 
other business entity (exclucling a puolicly held 
corporation) in which the filer has an ownership or beneficial 
interest; the name, occupaticn, and ac dress of all other 
persons with an interest in the same Lusiness entity; and, if 
the ownership or beneficial interest is sold!, the amount of 
gain or loss from the sale; 

(¢) the source, specifically identified by the name, occupation, 
and address of the payor, ari amount of income ir: excess of 
$500 per source Tom interest, divider ds, royalties, and rent; 

MAR THN A ey TS i = Fy ES 

 



  

(d) 

(e) 

(f 

(g) 

the amount owed under any personal 10te or lease 
agreement that existed at any time du “ing the year; 
disclosing the name, occupation, and vddyess of any 
guarantor, creditor or lessor; 

the name of any trust and the trustee ‘or cny trust from 
which the filer received income as ben. ficiary of the trust; 

the value of all assets and liazilities of any corporation, 
partnership, or other business entity i1 wich 50% or more 
of the outstanding ownership was helt, acquired, cr sold by 
the filer; disclosing the name, occupat.on, and address of the 

person to whom un asset cr Lizhility of such corporation, 
partnership, or business entity was so d; and 

the name of any person, association, 0; corporation 
providing gifts, meals, transportation, or iod.zing expenses 
on behalf of or to benefit the fiier (exce #t for those conferred 
on account of kinship or a personal, professional, or business 
relationship independent of the filer’s sfficial status); the 
amount of such expenses; and the dates and locations of 
such expenses. 

R . 

 



Judicial Selection Reform 
Press Announcement 
Dallas and Houston 

March 1, 1993 

JUDICIAL SELECTION REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT 

On February 5th, I announced that I would presznt a judicial selection reform 
proposal to the legislature within 60 days. Governor Rict arcs and Lt. Governor Bullock 
requested that I accelerate that effort and reduce the 60 Jay time frame to 30 days. 

This morring, after 25 days, I was pleased to submit :ny recommendations to 
Governor Richards, Lt. Governor Bullock, Speaker Lanzy and other members of the 

Legislature. 

We believe Texans deserve a new system of electir g cur state district judges, one 
which will provide citizens a judiciary free of undve political influence, free of 

obligations to special interests, and most importantly, a juciciary that upholds the 
principle of fair and equal representation. 

During the past 25 days, my staff has diligently r searched this issue. We have 
met with, and communicated among, hundreds of leaders across the spectrum of 
interests in our state, and beyond. ‘We have met with. state officials and examined 
selection methods in Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Misc issipgi, Louisiana, Illinois and 
Oklahoma - states most recently confronted with judidal selzction challenges similar to 
ours. 

We have reviewed thousands of documents on the subject of judicial selection, 
and spent countless hours examining options which mig ht yield a state judiciary 
more reflective of the diversity found in Texas today. 

Clearly, the formidable task of governing diversity bécomes more manageable 
when the government itself reflects that diversity. 

Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the legislature take action to end the 
current challenges to our state’s judicial selection proce:s, and replace our antiquated 
judicial selection process with a plan suitable for the 21st Century. 

As you know, a 3-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circiit ‘Court ruled in January that 
the at-large system of electing state district judges in eight urban Texas counties was 
unfair to Africari American and Hispanic voters, and thus a violation of the Voting 
Rights Act. 

Already, a number of useful legislative proposals have been filed to address the 
5th Circuit Court's ruling.  



va 

v 

Most seek only to impact the eight counties affi:cted by the most recent court 

ruling. I believe we should go beyond those proposals. We must seek an inclusive and 

accountable judidiary for every citizen in our state, not jist those who happen to reside 
in eight Texas counties. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the legislature adopt a system whereby district 

judges are elected from subdistricts by place in every Texas county with a population 

of more than 100,000. - 

It is properly the prerogative of the legislature and the representatives from each 

affected county to decide whether the process of electing their judges be based on the 

districts of state representatives, county commissioners, justices of the peace or other 

districts. 

It is my hope that such a prccess will not only end current challenges to our 

judicial selection: process, but also help put qualified mirority judges on the bench in the 

more populous counties where they reside. 

Coupled with this selection reform initiative, I am recommending legislative 

adoption of our eight point judicial campaign finance reform package, which imposes 

strict limitations on individual campaign contributicns, strict Jimitations on PAC 

campaign contributions, maximum spending linaits per election, additional disclosure 

requirements for judicial candidates and contributors, aad “ougher enforcement so that 
violators will face severe sanctions. 

The taint of political favoritism and the influ:ncz of big money are doing 

immeasurable harm to the public's faith and confidence ‘n our judicial system. We must 

eliminate once and for all the perception that justice is for sale in Texas. 

I am going to the Legislature tomorrow to present mv plan to a special Senate 

subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee. Tten, on Wednesday and Friday, 
my office will conduct public hearings on this proposal in the two counties that will be 
most affected - Dallas and Harris. 

Not everyone will agree with my proposal. It is always possible for well 

intentioned people to disagree. However, the one sure path to failure is to do nothing. 
We can ill afford to spend precious time and energy on Tit.cism and bickering because, 
in my view, it would be impossible “0 do worse than tae current system. 

Today we are living with judicial selection methods that may have served us well 
when they were established almost 120 years ago, but now fails us in many key respects. 

We must act to change this.  



Uo Ud, dad lu. 2 ‘Poli dbJ &ULY STIX ALLY General Wjul4-Ulo 

Now let me address why I have recommended that district judges be elected, 
rather than appointed. 

  

Even though some states utilize a merit selection or a selection and retention 
system, I firmly believe this is an option the vast majorits of Texans oppose. 

Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach, as Chief Justice Phillips said last 
week In his State of the Judiciary address, is the problem of "who picks the pickers.” 

Texans dor/t want government by committee. Ther don’t wari justice dispensed 
by a chosen few. 

Two recent statewide referenduins have shown that the rnajority of Texans share 
my conviction that the judicial selection process should remain linked to the right to 
vote. 

Of even greater concern to us than selection is re:eniion voting. Our research 
showed that in the first 45 years of retention elections, only 3 judges nationwide were 
rejected at all levels. The rate that incumbent appointed judges were defeated in 
retention elections appears to be approximately 1.6 percent. 

And the key factor in those defeats was poor campaigning skills, not poor 

courtroom skills. 

I believe that elections are particularly in keepin; with the Texas tradition of 
autonomy and self governance. The system I have recominer ded will make it easier for 
the average citizen to participate in a meaningful way. 

It is ime to end the fiction that voting for dozens of judges on a single ballot is 
a meaningful selection. When each voter can have input irto the selection of two or 

- three judges - judges whose performances they can much mare effectively evaluate - 
then judicial elections become a meaningful exercse in a :counmbility, not a charade. 

Our research shows that this system will work fo: everyone involved: citizens, 
minority voters, rainority candidates and incumtent judges. 

Let me give you one example. Until 1989, Arkansas not only never had an African 
American judge, it never had an African American canclidate for the bénch. After a 
lawsuit was filed under the Voting Rights Act, a plan was iinplemented similar to the 
one ] am recommending. 

Today, ten of the 41 judges within the challenged Arlcansas circuits are African 
American. 

 



Uo Ua do LU. a0 ‘Pola 400 ZULY SCX ACLS Gene dl Ulo-Uliv 

In conclusion, let me say that this plan is, in my vi:w, the least interruptive of all 

approaches. It requires no modification of venue or jurisdiction. It does not 

change what judges do, nor does it end the people's right to elect them. It simply 

changes the selection method. We anticipate no disruption of court functioning or 
effectiveness. 

  

Generally, our incumbent judges maintain the highest ethical standards and an 

unassailable commitment to equality before the law. 

I believe that concerns about wholesale turnover among the judiciary are 
unwarranted. 

What will happen is what should happen. 

Qualified African American, Hispanic anc. other niinority attorneys who wish to 
serve on the bench will have improved opportunities to do so. 

In America, when we talk abcut equality, more than anything else, we mean 
equality in the voting booth and equality in the court rcom. 

I will do everything I can to help the legislature mest its obligations to ensure 
equal voting rights and equal justice. 

Thank you very much. 

 



  

EXHIBIT B 

 



&% HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.F » 
A REGISTERED LIM TED LIABILITY PARTNER 2H (P 

INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL TRPORATICYS 

1717 MAIN STRIZEZT 

  

SUITE 2800 - 
1021 MAIN STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 78201 Hl CONGRESS AVENUE 

SUITF 1300 (214 839-3500 j SUITE BCO HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 FAX (214) $39.€120 AUSTIN, TEXAS 7879 
(713) 754-5200 TELEX 730836 (212) a82.680C 

FAX (713) 754-2206 
FAX (S512) 482-6859 

February 2, 1993 

To: All Counsel (VIA TELECOPY) 

Re: LULAC v. Clements, et _al.,, No, S0-£014 

Dear Counsel: 

I am writing in Bob Mow's absence ir response to Bill 
Garrett's letter of tcday regarding a proposed Agreed 
Settlement Order. As we have previously stated, Judge Entz 
believes strongly that the current svstem is lawful. 
Particularly in view of the recent Fifth Circuit opinions, 
Judge Entz believes that the current sws=-em will be fully 
vindicated in the Fifth Circuit er. banc and, if necessary, in 
the United States Supreme Court, 

Accordingly, Judge Entz does not agree to the proposed 
settlement or to any similar proposed sattlement at this 
time. Moreover, the case cannot be settled absent Judge 
Entz's agreement. In view of that position, no representative 
for Judge Entz will participate in the meting tomorrow, 

As a matter of record let me also note that: (1) we 
believe the proposed sett. erent is affirmatively unlawful and 
unconstitutional for most of the same reasons why we ¢bjected 
to the prior attempted settlement agreemant and to Judge 
Bunton's interim order, and (2) the district court has no jurisdicticn even to consider such a proposed order at this 
point, 

Very truly ycCurs, 

2 0s Soll LLmd lL. gs by uc 
Robert H. Mow, Jr., P.g7 ) 
David C. Godbey 
Bobby M. Rubarts 

    

  

ATTORNEYS, FOR DALLAS COUNTY 
DISTRICT JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 

    

 



  

EXHIBIT C 

 



Houston Lawyers’ Association Proposed Plan 

for Election of District Judges 

in Harris County, Texas 

March, 1993 

Plaintiff-intervenors, Houston Lawyers’ Association, et al., propose a combination 
sub-district/modified at-large plan’ for the election of judges in Harris County. Using this 
election plan, African American voters in Harris County would be able to elect 14 judicial 
candidates of their choice.” Hispanic voters would be able to elect at least eight judicial 
candidates of their choice. Fifty judges would be elected from the existing Texas House 
of Representative districts in Harris County with two judges elected from each of the 
twenty-five legislative districts. The remaining nine judges would be elected at-large using 
either cumulative or limited voting. 

Sub-District Judicial Elections 

Harris County currently has twenty-five state legislative districts, Districts 126-150. 
Of the total twenty-five, six of the districts currently elect African American representatives, 
as indicated below: 

District AA Pop. (VAP)  Hisp. Pop. (VAP) AA + Hisp. (VAP) 
  

131 

139 

141 

142 

146 

147 

53% (50.1%) 

45.9% (44%) 

52.8% (51.6%) 

55.6% (55.4%) 

55.6% (54.6%) 

52.1% (51.4%) 

  

14.2% (13.1%) 

15.8% (14.3%) 

16.2% (14.8%) 

18.9% (16.7%) 

10.6% (9.3%) 

22.6% (19.8%) 

66.3% (62.4%) 

61.2% (57.9%) 

68.1% (65.6%) 

73.7% (71.3%) 

65.6% (63.4%) 

73.5% (70%) 

'Sub-districts refer to districts which are smaller than the entire county. The districts proposed 
herein are not pure single-member districts, because plaintiff-intervenors contemplate the election 
of two judges from each of Harris County's legislative sub-districts. 

*The LULAC plaintiffs dropped their voting rights claims on behalf of Hispanic voters prior to 
the 1989 trial in this case. No evidence was adduced at trial by plaintiffs as to the effect of the 
current at-large judicial election scheme on the ability of Hispanic voters to elect their candidates 
of choice in Harris County. In this proposal, the Houston Lawyers’ Association does make 
reference to the effect of its plan on the increased ability of Mexican American voters to elect their 
judicial candidates of choice.  



Under the proposed plan, in which two judges would be elected from each of the 
twenty-five legislative districts in Harris County, African American voters will be afforded 
a realistic opportunity to elect at least 12 district court judges of their choice from Districts 
131, 139, 141, 142, 146 and 147. 

There are three legislative districts containing a majority Hispanic population. If two 
judicial candidates were elected from each legislative district, Hispanic voters in Harris 
County would be able to elect at least 6 judicial candidates of their choice. 

At-Large Cumulative/Limited Voting 

If the remaining nine seats in Harris County were elected by cumulative or limited 
voting, African American voters would be able to elect two additional candidates of their 
choice, and Hispanic voters would be able to elect at least 2 additional judicial candidates 
of their choice. 

Cumulative voting and limited voting are alternative at-large election techniques 
which provide increased opportunities for minority voters to elect their candidates of choice 
by lowering the "threshold of exclusion" for minority voters. The "threshold of exclusion" 
is the percentage above which a politically cohesive group of minority voters will be able 
to elect at least one candidate of choice. In the current countywide exclusionary at-large 
method of electing district judges in Harris County, the threshold of exclusion is 50% + 
1. African American voters, who constitute only 20% of the population are unable to elect 
their candidates of choice. 

Itis important to remember that cumulative and limited voting scenarios incorporate 
"worst case" assumptions about white voting behavior. When we calculate the ability of 
minority voters to elect candidates under cumulative and limited voting in Harris Conny, 
we assume the following: 

(1) White voters will cast all of the votes available to them 

(2) None of white voters votes will be cast for the African 
American voters’ preferred candidate(s), but rather 

(3) All of white voters’ votes are concentrated on a numbers 
of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled and; 

(4) those votes are evenly distributed across those candidates. 

The formula for calculating the threshold of exclusion for cumulative and limited 
voting is as follows:  



  

Cumulative voting: 1 
1+ (number of seats) 
  

Limited voting: (votes per voters) 
(votes per voter) + (number of seats) 
  

Cumulative Voting in Harris County 

If 50 of Harris County’s 59 district judges were elected by legislative sub-district and 
the 9 remaining district judges were elected by cumulative voting, the threshold of exclusion 
would be 10%. That is, 1/1+ number of seats, or 1/10 or 10%. This means that an African 
American population of greater than 10% of the population in Harris County could elect 
at least one additional district judge. But because African Americans in fact constitute 
20% of the population in Harris County, or twice the threshold of exclusion, under a 
cumulative voting scheme African American voters in Harris County could elect at least 2 
additional judges of their choice. 

Similarly, Hispanic voters who constitute 20% of the voting age population of Harris 
County, and 22% of the total population would be able to elect at least 2 additional judicial 
candidates of their choice, using either cumulative or limited voting. 

Combined with the number of judges African Americans could elect using legislative 
sub-districts, African Americans voters would be able to elect 14 judicial candidates of their 
choice under a mixed legislative sub-district, cumulative voting election scheme. Hispanic 
voters would be able to elect a total of eight candidates of their choice. 

Limited Voting in Harris County 

For limited voting, the threshold of exclusion is the same 10%. This means that if 
every voter received only one vote for the nine seats up for election, African American 
voters would be able to elect one candidate of their choice. Because the African American 
population is 20%, two times the threshold of exclusion, African Americans would able to 
elect two of their candidates of choice. 

The limited voting scenario is easier, however, if each voter is given two votes for the 
nine seats. If each voter is given 2 votes, the threshold of exclusion is 18.2%. Since 
African Americans constitute 20% of the population, they would still be able to elect 2 of 
their candidates of choice. 

Combined with the 12 judges African American voters could elect using legislative 

 



  

sub-districts, African American voters would be able to elect 14 judicial candidates of their 
choice under a mixed legislative sub-district, 2 vote limited voting election scheme. 

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, NY 10013 

(212) 219-1900 

bd Counsel for Houston Lawyers 
Association, et al. 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
AT 

I hereby certify that on this Gn day of March, 1993 a true 

and correct copy of a Motion for Interim Relief and Stay was mailed 

to counsel of record in this case by first class United States 

mail, postage pre-paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hall Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 

Rolando L. Rios 
The Law Office of Rolando 

L. Rios 
Milam Building, Suite 1024 
115 E. Travis Street 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 
Cloutman, Albright & Bower 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, TX 75226-1637 

J. Eugene Clements 
John E. O’Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 7002-2730 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 

John ‘L. Hill, Jr. 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Commerce Tower 

Houston, TX 77002 

David R. Richards 
Special Counsel 
600 West 7th Street 

Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, TX 75201 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Walker & Satterthwaite 
7800 N. Mopac 
Suite 215 
Austin, TX 78750 

 



  

Dan Morales 
Will Pryor 
Mary F. Keller 
Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajardo 
Attorney General'’s Office 
Price Daniel Sr. 

Office Building 
209 W. 14th Street 
Austin, TX 78701-2548 

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 

Kelleher & Wheatley, 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Inc. 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 South R.L. Thornton Freeway 
Suite 121 

Dallas, TX 75203 

Darrell Smith 
10999 Interstate Highway 10 
Suite 905 
San Antonio, TX 78230 

J F200 if. 
PNK Loa 

Walter L. Irvin 
5787 South Hampton Road 
Suite 210, Lock Box 122 
Dallas, TX 75232-2255 

Ken Oden 

Travis County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1748 
Austin, TX 78767 

Tom Rugg 
Jefferson County 

Courthouse 
Beaumont, TX 77701 

John R. Dunne 
Jessica Dunsay Silver, 
Mark Gross, Esq. 
c/o Attorney General of the 

United States 
United States Department 

of Justice 
Main Justice Building 
10th & Pennsylvania 

Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

Esq. 

20530 

) / O hr 

Sai] FLL 
  

Sherrilyn /A. 
Attorney, 

Ifill 
or Plaintiffs-Appellees