Motion of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees for Remand to District Court

    . A A National Office 

Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

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

July 17, 1991 

Hon. Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp St. 
New Orleans, LA 70130 

Re: LULAC v. Mattox, No. 90-8014 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed for filing in the above case are the original and twenty copies of Plaintiffs- 
Appellees’ Motion for Remand to the District Court. Although we are of the view that the 
matter should be considered by the panel rather than the Court in banc, in light of the 
submission of the State of Texas we are enclosing sufficient copies for the full court. 

Very truly yours, 

Charles Stephen Ralston 
cc: 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 

 



  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al. 
Plaintiffs-Appellees & Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees 

V. 

JIM MATTOX, et al. 
Defendants-Appellants & Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants 

  

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND 
PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS-APPELLEES 
FOR REMAND TO DISTRICT COURT 

  

Plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees in the above captioned case 

respectfully move this Court to remand the proceedings to the district court in light of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Chisom v. Roemer and HLA v. Attorney General of 
    

Texas, and as grounds therefore state as follows: 

(1 The district court of the Western District of Texas decided this case in favor 

of plaintiffs on November 8, 1989. That decision held that the at-large method of electing 

district judges in nine counties in Texas violates the Voting Rights of 1965, as amended, 

by diluting the vote of the African American and Mexican American voters. Although 

the district court gave the defendant State of Texas an opportunity to present a remedial 

plan, it failed to do so; the court then ordered interim relief for one year, which order was 

vacated by this Court. Thus, there has as yet been no hearing on the appropriate remedy. 

2. A panel of the Fifth Circuit heard an appeal of the district court’s opinion on 

April 28, 1991. On May 11, 1991, the panel issued a decision reversing a decision of the 

 



  

district court, holding that the method of electing trial judges cannot be challenged under 

§2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

3. Rehearing in banc was held on June 19, 1991. The Fifth Circuit in banc held 

that the judicial elections are not covered by §2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

4. On June 21, 1991, the Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Fifth Circuit 

and held that the results test of §2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to claims of vote 

dilution in judicial elections. The Court remanded the case "for further proceedings 

consistent with [its] opinion." Slip Op. at 8. The decision of the Suptoiie Court will have 

particular impact on the appropriatness of a final remedy, since at that stage the question 

of the State’s interest in maintaining the present method of electing judges may be of the 

greatest relevance. Therefore, this Court’s consideration of the issues yet to be resolved 

in light of the Supreme Court’s decision will be informed by further proceedings in the 

district court. 

5. In accordance with the Court’s direction, plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs- 

intervenors-appellees request that this court remand the case to the district court. 

6. In the alternative, plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees 

respectfully request that that this court authorize the submission of additional briefing to 

this court, and grant a request for reargument of the relevant issues. In our view, the case 

should be considered by the panel that originally heard the appeal, since the issue decided 

by the in banc Court has been finally decided by the Supreme Court.’ 

  

‘In the case noted by the State of Texas in its submission of July 15, 1991, Bhandari 
v. first National Bank of Commerce, 887 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1989), on the other hand, the 
Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration a question that had been decided by this   

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 1991, I sent a copy of the foregoing 

document by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following: 

Renea Hicks J. Eugene Clements 

Special Assistant Attorney General Porter & Clements 
P.O. Box 12543, Capitol Station 700 Louisiana 
Austin, TX 78711-2548 Suite 3500 

Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. Walter L. Irvin 
Hughes & Luce 5787 South Hampton Rd. 
2800 Momentum Place Suite 210 
1717 Main Street Dallas, TX 75232-2255 
Dallas, TX 75201 

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher 

& Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 7 7") AE Li 

  

  

Charles Stephen Ralston 

 



# 

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees 

  

respectfully request that this Court grant this motion for remand of the proceedings to the 

district court. 

Reena submitted, 

dl S/ 

  

William L. Garrett thy 4 Chambers 
Brenda Hull Thompson Charles Stephen Ralston 

8300 Douglas, Ste. 800 Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
Dallas, TX 75255 99 Hudson St., 16th Floor 
(214) 369-1952 New York, N.Y. 10013 

(212) 219-1900 
Rolando L. Rios 

201 N. St. Mary’s St. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Suite 521 106 S. St. Mary’s St. 
San Antonio, TX 78205 One Alamo Center 
(512) 222-2102 San Antonio, TX 78205 

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees ( 12) 299-3523 
LULAC, et al. Counsel for Plaintiffs-Intervernors- 

Appellees, HLA, et al. 

Texas Rural Aid, Inc. Edward B. Cloutman III 
David Hall 3301 Elm St. 

259 S. Texas Dallas, TX 75226 
Weslaco, TX 78596 (214) 939-3793 
(512) 968-6574 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Susan Finkelstein 777 S.R.L. Thornton 

201 N. St. Mary’s St. Dallas, TX 75203 
Suite 624 (215) 428 3793 
San Antonio, TX 78205 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Intervenors- 
SR 968-6574 Appellees, Jesse Oliver, et al. 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 
Christina Moreno 

  

Court in banc. It was therefore appropriate for the in banc Court to reconsider the issue 
that had been remanded. 

 



  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 90-3014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al. 
Plaintiffs-Appellees & Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees 

V. 

JIM MATTOX, et al. 
Defendants-Appellants & Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants 

  

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND 
PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS-APPELLEES 
FOR REMAND TO DISTRICT COURT 

  

Plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees in the above captioned case 

respectfully move this Court to remand the proceedings to the district court in light of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Chisom v. Roemer and HLA v. Attorney General of 
    

Texas, and as grounds therefore state as follows: 

1. The district court of the Western District of Texas decided this case in favor 

of plaintiffs on November 8, 1989. That decision held that the at-large method of electing 

district judges in nine counties in Texas violates the Voting Rights of 1965, as amended, 

by diluting the vote of the African American and Mexican American voters. Although 

the district court gave the defendant State of Texas an opportunity to present a remedial 

plan, it failed to do so; the court then ordered interim relief for one year, which order was 

vacated by this Court. Thus, there has as yet been no hearing on the appropriate remedy. 

2. A panel of the Fifth Circuit heard an appeal of the district court’s opinion on 

April 28, 1991. On May 11, 1991, the panel issued a decision reversing a decision of the 

 



  

district court, holding that the method of electing trial judges cannot be challenged under 

§2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

3. Rehearing in banc was held on June 19, 1991. The Fifth Circuit in banc held 

that the judicial elections are not covered by §2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

4. On June 21, 1991, the Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Fifth Circuit 

and held that the results test of §2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to claims of vote 

dilution in judicial elections. The Court remanded the case "for further proceedings 

consistent with [its] opinion." Slip Op. at 8. The decision of the Supreme Court will have 

particular impact on the appropriatness of a final remedy, since at that stage the question 

of the State’s interest in maintaining the present method of electing judges may be of the 

greatest relevance. Therefore, this Court’s consideration of the issues yet to be resolved 

in light of the Supreme Court’s decision will be informed by further proceedings in the 

district court. 

5. In accordance with the Court’s direction, plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs- 

intervenors-appellees request that this court remand the case to the district court. 

6. In the alternative, plaintiffs-appellees and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees 

respectfully request that that this court authorize the submission of additional briefing to 

this court, and grant a request for reargument of the relevant issues. In our view, the case 

should be considered by the panel that originally heard the appeal, since the issue decided 

by the in banc Court has been finally decided by the Supreme Court.’ 

  

In the case noted by the State of Texas in its submission of July 15, 1991, Bhandari 
v. first National Bank of Commerce, 887 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1989), on the other hand, the 

Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration a question that had been decided by this 
  

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 1991, I sent a copy of the foregoing 

document by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following: 

Renea Hicks J. Eugene Clements 
Special Assistant Attorney General Porter & Clements 
P.O. Box 12543, Capitol Station 700 Louisiana 
Austin, TX 78711-2548 Suite 3500 

Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. Walter L. Irvin 
Hughes & Luce 5787 South Hampton Rd. 
2800 Momentum Place Suite 210 
1717 Main Street Dallas, TX 75232-2255 
Dallas, TX 75201 

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher 

& Wheatley, Inc. ra 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor fe ah 
San Antonio, TX 78205 TY / Serr 

/ # ad ra : £3 J] 7 4% 

/ Ved 4 / rn) > 2D 4 V ai "4 

[| Lets > Ue ps   

Charles Stephen Ralston 

 



  

WHEREFORE, the 

respectfully request that this Court grant this motion for remand of the proceedings to the 

district court. 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 

8300 Douglas, Ste. 800 
Dallas, TX 75255 
(214) 369-1952 

Rolando L. Rios 
201 N. St. Mary’s St. 
Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 
(512) 222-2102 

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
LULAC, et al 

Texas Rural Aid, Inc. 
David Hall 

259 S. Texas 
Weslaco, TX 78596 
(512) 968-6574 

Susan Finkelstein 
201 N. St. Mary’s St. 
Suite 624 
San Antonio, TX 78205 
(212) 968-6574 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 
Christina Moreno 

  

Court in banc. It was therefore appropriate for the in banc Court to reconsider the issue 
that had been remanded. 

plaintiffs-appellees 

oy 

Respectfully submitted, 

ulius L. Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill 

99 Hudson St., 16th Floor 
New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 
106 S. St. Mary’s St. 
One Alamo Center 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

WR, 299-3523 
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Intervernors- 
Appellees, HLA, et al. 

Edward B. Cloutman III 

3301 Elm St. 

Dallas, TX 75226 
(214) 939-3793 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 S.R.L. Thornton 
Dallas, TX 75203 
(219) 428 3793 

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Intervenors- 
Appellees, Jesse Oliver, et al. 

  

and plaintiffs-intervenors-appellees