Dallas County Judge Entz's Original Answer

    SENT BY : HUGHES & LUCE DALLAS y 2-25-91 , 1:35PM HUGHES & LUCE=212 220 7592 

  

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

MIDLAND--ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS 
(LULAC), eral, 

Plaintiffs, 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 

Vv. MO 88 CA 154 

JIM MATTOX, etal, 

Defendants. 

F. HAROLD ENTZ, JUDGE 
OF THE 194TH JUDICIAL 
DISTRICT COURT OF 
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

Applicant for 
Intervention as 
A Defendant. I

C
E
 
L
C
F
 

LM
I 

LM
 

U
M
 
L
E
 

L
L
M
 

LM
 

L
I
L
A
 

ER
 
LM
 
T
L
 

L
L
 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
EF. HAROLD ENTZ'S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

The Honorable F, Harold Entz, Judge of the 194th 

Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas 

("Intervenor”), files his Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Amended Complaint, and in support of thiz Answer shows the 

following: 

Intervenor hag filed his Motion to Intervene pursuant to 

the provisions of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. This proposed Criginal Answer represents the 

pleading setting forth his assertions and defenses that is 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'S ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 1 

SL 1552 2149396183 PAGE.@AZ 

 



  

SENT BY:HUGHES & LUGE DALLAS 2-25-81 ; 1:36PM ; HUGHES & LUCE=212 226 7592 

  

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

permits his intervention in this cause, Intervenor requests 

that this proposed Answer he Zilea 8s his Original Answer in 

this cause, 

Intervenor responds to the allegations in the numberered 

paragraphs of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as follows: 

1. Intervenor lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations. 

2, Denied in substance (Plaintiffs do so request). 

3, Admitted, except Intervenor denies any cause of 

action exists as to Dallas County. 

4,=9, Intervencor lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these 

allegations, 

10. Admitted as to the offices alleged. 

11. Admitted. 

12. Denied because of the ambiguous terms used. Dallas 

County Judicial Districts sre coterminous with county lines 

and Judges are elected by majority vote in differing years. 

13.-23. Intervenor lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these 

allegations. 

24.,=25., Denied as to Dallas County. 

26. Denied. 

27. Intervenor lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these 

allegations, 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'S ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 2 

*g1 18:53 : : 2149396102 PAGE. ABS 

 



   SENT BY HUGHES & LUGE Gi bald y 1:36PM HUGHES & LUCE=212 226 7592 

28.-25. Denisd with respect to Dallas County. 

30. This paragraph alleges a legal conclusion which 

Intervenor neither admits nor denies. 

31. Denied with respect to Dallas County. 

32. Denied as to this Intervenor. 

33. This Intervenor denies that Plaintiffs are entitled 

to the relief sought. 

Intervenor agserts the following affirmative defenses: 

34, Por purposes of preserving review in the Supreme, 

Court, Judge Entz affirmatively claims that the Voting 

Rights Act does not apply tp judicial selection. 

.35. Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failure 

to join all district judges within the "target counties" and 

all sppellate judges as defendants in that these judges are 

necessary or indispensible parties under Rule 19. 

WHEREFORE, Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz 

respectfully requests that the Plaintiffs’ claims be 

dismissed with respect to the system for electing district 

judges within Dallas County and that judgment be entered in 

his favor and that he recover all other relief to which he 

may show himself justly entitled. 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'E ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 3 

—— 
Eh, 

Li
l 

: 

il
 

  

6183 PAGE.O04



  

   
   

SENT BY HUGHES & LUCE nee JmipmBl ; 1-E7PM HUGHES & LUCE=212 226 7582 BD 
» 

Robert MH, Mow, Jr. 
David C. Godbey 
Bobby M. Rubarts 
Esther R. Rosenblum 

  

Re ctfully submitted, 

~0 Frit A 

of HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 
214/938-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 

COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document wag served on counsel of record on 

this 27 day of February, 1589. 

  

52800010:6 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ'E ORIGINAL ANSWER - Page 4 

FEB 25 sai (Ema ty  P214933961@3 FPAGE.RES 

 



16:1@ FROM ATTY GEM OFF ADM TO 9-2122267592  P.@9 

  

    

      

  

  

      

  

    
  

  

    
  
  

    
  

    
  

  

EXHIBIT A 
COUNTY Total J udges Total Judges, Total Judges 
UNITS lected (90) Elected (192) Elected 

Harris 34(3B; 2H) 25 (IH) 593B; 3H) 
Gen. Civil/NS 10 {1H} 21 | 31 (1H] 

Criminal 12 (28; 1H) 4 (IH) 16 (2B; 2H) 
Family 12 (1B) 0 12 118) 

Dallas : 26(1B; 1H) 10 (IB) 36(2B; 1H) 
Gen. Civil/NS 3 (IH) 3 13..73H) 
Criminal 10 4 (1B) 14 {15 
Family 8 (IB | 9. {18 

Tarrant 11 (2B) 12 23 (2B) 
Gen. Civil/NS 2 Q 11 

Criminal 3 (1B) 2 SIE; 
Family 6 (IB) 1 7 {iB 

Bexar | 10 (2H) 9 (3H) 19 (5H) 
Gen.Civil/NS 4 (JH) 7 {2H 11 3H 
Criminal 3 {lH) 2 (1H) 7 (2H) 
Family 0 1 

Travis 6 i 13 
Gen.Civil/NS 5 ¥ 12 
Criminal *3 0 1 
Farnily 0 0 0 

El Paso 5 3) = 3 20; 8 (3H) 
Gen.Civil/N$ 4 (2H) 3 (2H) 7 (4H) 
Criminal 0 0 0 

Family 1 IH) 0 } (1H) 

Jefferson 6 2 8 
Gen. Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 2 0 2 
Family 2 0 2 

Galve ton 3 SR % 5 
Gen. Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 1 0 1 

Lubbock 2 2 4 
Gen. Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 Q 0 

Ector 3 1 4 
Gen. Civil/NS 3 1 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 0 0 

 



  

   GEM OFF FID Tis 

  

  

  

    

    

    
  

    
  

  

    

  
  

  

McLennan 2 2 4 
Gen.Civil/NS 2 2 4 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 0 0 

Smith 3 1 3 
Gen. Civil/NS 1 1 2 
Criminal 0 0 0 

Family 1 0 1 

Culberson, El Paso, & 
Hudspeth 2 1 3 

Gen. Civil/NS 1 i 2 

Criminal 1 0 1 

Family 0 0 0 

Fort Bend 2 1 3 
Gen. Civil/NS 1 1 2 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 1 0 1 

Midland 1 2 3 
Gen. Civil/NS 1 1 2 
Criminal 0 0 0 
Family 0 1 1 

Crosby & Lubbock ‘0 1 1 
Gen. Civil/NS 0 1 1 
Criminal 0 0 0 

Family 0 0 C 

Smith & Wood 0 1 1 
Gen. Civil/NS 0 1 1 
Criminal 0 0 0 

Family 0 0 0 

TOTALS 115(6B; 8H) 82(1B; 6H) 197(7B; 14H) 
Gen. Civil/NS 48 (5H) 67 (4H) 115 (9H) 

Criminal 34 (3B; 2H) 12 {iB 2H) 46 (4B; 4H) 

Family 33 (3B; IH) 3 36 (3B; IH) 

  
  

  

  

Notes: "B" means Black, and "4" means Hispanic. 
"NS" means non-specialized. 

Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

-i- 

a 

 



   
hE 

FEB 

FEB-=25-19511 

  

     16:14 FROM ATTY GEM OFF ADM 21 2220 FIR    

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

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MQO-88-CA-154 

V8. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. S
A
 

LE
N 

LG
 

QR
 

On
 

On
 
o
n
 

STATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 
OF JESSE OLIVER, FRED TINSLEY, AND JOAN WINN WHITE 

The State Defendants -- that is, the Attorney General of Texas, the 

Secretary of State of Texas, and the thirteen members of the Judicial 

Districts Board of Texas, all in their official capacities -- answer as follows 

to the Complaint in Intervention (“complaint”) of Jesse Oliver, Fred Tinsley, 

and Joan Winn White: 

; First Defense 

The complaint fails to state a claim against State Defendants upon 

which relief can be granted because each of the judicial districts challenged 

in Dallas County already is a single member district. State district judges 

L
o
 are elected to a specific judicial district and serve as the judge for tha 

district without sitting as part of a collegial decisionmaking body. Vote 

dilution claims cannot be made against a single member electoral system. 

Second Defense 

1. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in the first 

sentence of 1 of the complaint. The remainder of ۤ1 of the complaint 

contains only averments to which no responsive pleading is required; 

however, to the extent it is construed to contain averments requiring a 

responsive pleading, the State Defendants deny them. 

C0
 

MJ
 

0
 

LN
 

r I
 

I
 

C
J
 

Ir = [ (}
 

i 
3 

xX
 

(}
 

Ri
l 

i=
l 

-.
] 25 '31 

 



  

     
FEE-25-1991 15:14 cron rr GEM OFF ADM TO B-212226755 FP. 18 

    

2. 192 and 3 of the complaint contain only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent they are construed 

to contain averments requiring a responsive pleading, the State Defendants 

deny them. 

3; The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of averments in §4 of the 

complaint, 

4, The State Defendants admit that the averments in §5 of the 

complaint accurately identify the holders of the official positions to which 

reference is made (except for two members of the Judicial Districts Board) 

and are generally accurate in their descriptions of the state law-based 

responsibilities concerning the administration and enforcement of the laws 

wl
 

Fy
 of the state of Texas, including those concerning the electoral process. 

Because of uncertainty about the intended reach of some of the 

descriptions of the officials’ duties in §5, however, the State Defendants 

are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of those averments beyond what is stated in the preceding portion of 

this paragraph. 

3 The State Defendants admit the averments in 96 of the 

complaint. 

6. The State Defendants deny the averments in 947-8 of the 

complaint. 

7. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in §9 of the 

complaint. 

8. The State Defendants deny the averments in G10 of the 

complaint.  



    

FEE-Z5-1991 16:14 FROM 

  

      
HTT GEM OFF FHDM 

9, The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in 11 of the 

complaint. 

10. The State Defendants deny the averments in §Y12, 14, 16, 18, 

19, 20, and 21 of the complaint. 

11. The State Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in 913, 15, and 

17 of the complaint, 

12. §22 of the complaint contains only averments to which no 

responsive pleading is required. 

wo
 

F
y
 

~
 

- 13. The State Defendants deny the averments in (23-24 

complaint. 

14. The State Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 22- 

23 of their Answer to the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as their 

response to 925-28 of the complaint. 
Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
Fost Assistant Attorney General 

f Eo Ne ns JRTAVS b. 
RENEA HICKS 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

JAVIER GUAJARDO 
Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS 

Fy 1 

iN
] 

n
 

L
L
 

HA
] 

ng
 

i
i
 

Ll ml
 

i
 

| Ld
 

= | | 1
 

i 0 m
 

I=]
 

WH
]  



  

   mEe—-13091¢ 16: 1% FROM 9 GEM OFF HIM 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 30th day of May, 1989, I sent a copy of the 
foregoing pleading by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 

each of the following: William I. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 

Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New 

York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 
2050, Austin, Texas 78701; Edward B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab 

& Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene 

Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 
77002-2730; and Robert H. Mow, Jr., Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum 
Place, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

-r Ag Leb, 
so Hicks ¥ 

  

TOTAL FP.28 

FEB 25 '91 18:29 S12 463 2B63  PAGE.B2H