Response to Motion to Strike and Request for Hearing; Proposed Order

    ®  @ 
LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY, HILL & LABOON 

A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

  

(MA 

  

ATTORNEYS 1200 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER 

TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER 2200 ROSS AVENUL 
DALLAS, TEXAS 7520I 

-4800 

237 PARKAYENS HOUSTON, TERNS 7790s Sh Cpe 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1001}? (713) 226-1200 

(212) 455-9300 
r— 

TELEX 76-2616 301 CONGRESS AVENUE 
TELECOPIER(212) 986-728! 

SUITE 1400 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870I 

512) 320-4111 

TELECOPIER (512) 320-4161 

TELECOPIER (713) 223-3717 

January 8, 1990 

United States District Clerk 
P.O. Box 10708 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Re: C.A. No. 88-CA-154; League of United Latin American Citizens 
(LULAC), et al. v. Jim Mattox, et al.; In the United States 
District Court Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa 
Division 

  

  

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are the 
original and one copy of Defendant Bayoud’s Response to Motion to 
Strike and Request for Hearing and a Proposed Order. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 
di 

| ll { 
ho Dl TEL gla Ph 

   

  

JLH/amb 
Enclosures 

wat\lclerk 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

V. NO. 88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

wn
 

Wn
 

wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Wn
 

Defendants. 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING 

George S. Bayoud, Jr., Secretary of State and Defendant 

herein, files this, its Response to the Attorney General’s Motion 

to Strike and Request for Hearing, and would respectfully show the 

Court the following: 

1. The Secretary of State of Texas, George S. Bayoud, Jr. 

("Bayoud"), is a named party to this lawsuit. As such, Secretary 

Bayoud has heretofore been "represented" by the Honorable Jim 

Mattox, Attorney General of the State of Texas. 

2. On or about December 19, 1989, Mr. Mattox publicly 

announced that he had reached an agreement with the Plaintiff in 

this action on an interim election plan (the "Mattox-LULAC-Plan"). 

3, As shown by Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated 

herein by reference, Defendant Bayoud informed Mr. Mattox on 

 



  

December 21, 1989 of his intense displeasure with the Attorney 

General’s announcement concerning the Mattox-LULAC Plan, and 

specifically instructed that he "refrain from entering into such 

plan and that [Mattox] refrain from entering into any other 

settlement or plan without my prior consent." 

4. Nevertheless, on or about November 21, 1989, Mr. Mattox 

presented to this Honorable Court a proposed interim plan reached 

through private negotiations with Plaintiffs (the "Mattox-LULAC 

Plan"), on behalf of the Attorney General’s office. Notably, the 

Mattox-LULAC Plan was signed by Mr. Mattox solely in his capacity 

as Attorney General, and not as counsel for Defendant Bayoud. 

Be Such action on the part of Mr. Mattox amounts to a clear 

conflict of interest between the Attorney General’s office, the 

lawyer, and the Secretary of State, the client, both of whom are 

named Defendants in this lawsuit. 

6. This Honorable Court entered its Order on January 2, 

1990, enjoining: 

All Defendants and those acting in concert . 
. . from calling, holding, supervising and 
certifying elections for State District Judges 
in Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, 
Jefferson, Lubbock, Ector and Midland counties 
under the current at-large scheme. 

i On or about January 4, 1990, Defendant Bayoud informed 

Mr. Mattox of the administrative chaos which would result if this 

Honorable Court’s January 2, 1990 Order were to take effect. 

-D = 

 



Additionally, Defendant Bayoud specifically instructed Mr. Mattox 

as his legal counsel to immediately file a Motion to Stay the 

entire January 2, 1990 Order of this Court and to file an inter- 

locutory appeal on all available issues before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

A copy of this letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein 

as Exhibit vB", 

$4 Despite his client’s instructions, Mr. Mattox announced 

publicly on January 4, 1990 his intention to instead seek a 

modification of this Court’s January 2, 1990 Order on the sole 

issue of non-partisan elections. A true and correct copy of this 

press release is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 

Exhibit "OC". 

9. That same day, Defendant Bayoud informed Mr. Mattox of 

his engagement of John L. Hill, Jr., as independent outside 

counsel, at no cost to the State. True and correct copies of these 

letters are attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibits "D" 

and "Eg", 

10. Because time was of the essence, on or about January 5, 

1990, Defendant Bayoud, through John L. Hill, Jr. as independent 

counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal and a Notice of Designation of 

Independent Outside Counsel with this Court, as well as an Emer- 

gency Application For Stay and a Notice of Designation of Indepen- 

-T  



  

dent Outside Counsel with the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit. Copies of these documents are attached hereto 

as Exhibits "F-1Iv, 

11. Although Mr. Mattox claims he is representing the 

Secretary of State, Attorney General Mattox has still not filed 

the requested instruments with either Court. Mr. Mattox’s lack of 

firm commitment to file a stay and appeal on behalf of Bayoud 

creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the Secre- 

tary of State’s constitutional and statutory duties and those of 

the Attorney General. Defendant Bayoud has only been able to 

obtain the representation he desires by way of independent outside 

counsel. 

12. As Chief Elections Officer of the State, Defendant Bayoud 

is entrusted with the duty of advising and assisting election 

authorities with regard to the application, operation, and inter- 

pretation of the Election Code and election matters generally. 

There are numerous problems in implementing the judicial elections 

in nine counties in Texas as set out in the order. 

13. Defendant Bayoud is a Constitutional Officer of the 

State. Defendant Bayoud is entitled to adequate representation by 

counsel in this case. A clear conflict of interest exists between 

Mr. Mattox and Defendant Bayoud, and Defendant Bayoud is entitled 

to counsel who can and will serve his best interests with fidelity 

-l —- 

 



  

and devotion. Mr. Mattox’s Motion to Strike should be brought on 

for hearing and ultimately denied. 

14. As was recently set out by the Texas Supreme Court: 

Finally, in the unlikely event that any state 
attorney should fail to adequately represent 
the interest of his client agency, the court 
may deal with such failure in the same manner 
in which it may address such problems with 
other lawyers who practice before it. 

  

PUC Vv. Cofer, 754 S.W.24 121, 125 (Tex. 1988). 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Bayoud respectfully 

requests this Court grant a hearing on this matter and enter an 

Order denying Mr. Mattox’s Motion to Strike. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY, HILL 
& LABOON 

By: Ag ~ Vr 

Jopun L. Hill, Jr. 
ate Bar No. 00000027 

Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19727600 

3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 226-1200 

  

ATTORNEYS FOR GEORGE S. BAYOUD, 
JR. , SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Response to Motion to Strike and Request for Hearing has been 

-—f- 

 



  

served upon all counsel of record, by overnight federal express, 

on this X day of January, 1990. 

Nol Fo her 
TE 1, Hill, Jr. 
  

WAT\LULAC.1 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN § 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., § 

Plaintiffs, : 

Vv. : NO. 88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

ORDER 

On this day came on to be considered Defendant Jim Mattox’s 

Motion to Strike. The Court, after having considered the Motion, 

is of the opinion that said Motion should be denied. 

SIGNED this day of + 21990. 
  

  

PRESIDING JUDGE 

WAT\LULAC. 2 

 



  

State of Texas 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
Post Office Box 12697, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

December 21, 1989 

HAND-DELIVERED 
  

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Attorney General 

State of Texas 

Supreme Court Building 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: CIVIL ACTION #MO-88-CA-154 

LULAC COUNCIL $4433 ET AL. V. MATTOX ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

  

Dear General Mattox: 

By your public announcement on December 19, 1989, I understand that 

you have reached an agreement on an interim election plan with the 

plaintiffs in the above referenced matter. 

I hereby request that you refrain from entering into such plan and 

that you refrain from entering into any other settlement or plan 

without my prior written consent. 

The implementation of the proposed interim plan would not only be 

totally disruptive to the Texas judiciary, but also extremely 

disruptive to the entire Texas election process. As the State's 

chief elections officer, I have consulted with key county clerks 

and election administrators who have advised me that they 

anticipate severe problems in the implementation of such plan. In 

particular, they point to problems in the areas of ballot 

preparation and the reprogramming of voting systems used for 

tabulation within statutorily-mandated deadlines. 

.In addition, I anticipate numerous unanswered legal questions such 

as procedures for filling vacancies, uniformity of filing 

deadlines, and mechanisms concerning the withdrawal of candidates. 

of special concern is compliance with guidelines established by the 

federal overseas voting program for the expeditious mailing of 

absentee ballots to American citizens overseas. 

EXHIBIT A 

 



General Mattox 
December 21, 1989 

Page Two 

Furthermore, Texas law entrusts my office with the responsibility 

for registering eligible voters, and enhancing and protecting the 

right of every Texan to vote. This plan, on its face 

disfranchises thousands of voters. For example, in Midland, Ector, 

and Lubbock Counties, voters in certain precincts would be unable 

to vote for any candidate for district judge. 

For these reasons, as well as others that my office would be happy 

to discuss with you at greater length, please refrain from entering 

into your proposed settlement and prepare an immediate appeal of 

the Court's ruling on the merits. 

Sincerely, 

Judge Luciu III, Judge, United States District 

Court, Western District, Midland-Odessa Division 

Clerk, United States District Court, Western District, 

Midland-Odessa Division 

Ms. Mary F. Keller 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Renea Hicks, 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Javier Guajardo 

Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Mr. William L. Garrett 

Garrett, Thompson & Chang 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration & 

Education Project 

20] N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 

San Antonio, Texas 78205  



General Mattox 
December 21, 1989 

Page Three 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Mr. J. Eugene Clements 

Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 

2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

The Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Governor, State of Texas 

The Honorable William P. Hobby 

Lieutenant Governor, State of Texas 

The Honorable Gibson D. Lewis 

Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives 

whe Honorable Thomas R. Phillips 
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas 

 



    

   

  

LEY= 9123208111 1821 
SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLE i 1= 5=80 § 1:32PM i LIDDELL: SAPP 

e1 1315S HARRIS CO. COMM SU 
    

  

Offles of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

George 5. Bayoud, Jr. 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

  

  

January ¢, 29890 

EXECUTIVE BIVMION 

  

PC. Bai 1380 
Avis, Tenis WY11360 
Sy de The Eonorable Jim Mattox 
BLECTIONS DIVIMION Attorney Osneral 

1.0. Ba 1308 tates 02 Texas 
phi + guprems Court Building 
Sida Austin; Terman 78713 

odd § 

ET RE: & 
’ 

UNITID STATES DISTRICT COURT, WRETRRN DISTRICT 

DATA SERVICES OF TEXAS, MIDLAND.ODESSA DIVISION 

pig Boy nNLUN Ganeral Matto 
Gin ew AR Th 3) 

SUPPORT SERVICES As I told you in my letter to you of December 21, 

DIVISION 1585, 1 opposed the hg Cringe agreed order which you 

Feasts Jan{wan vere negotiating with the plaintitis. Azcng the 

Awiin, Taam 10 reasons vars that it would be diffienis to mde 
¢12) 3000 sinister; sche citizens may effectively be dis- 

BY! Savion enfranchised in elections undex the sed BIEN 

P.O. Bea \38E7 and my belief that judicial selextlen is & maties for 

Aun, Tons 471 (AM7 sha Taxas crt ig pig to address. Mons-the-less, you 

G3) 4-00 submitted tha plan and the ssurt im great 

STATUTORY FILINGS adopted tha plan. Tharafore, az a namad defendant in 

the rufaranced causa, 1 am (nstruotisg you as my 

10 lsga) counss) to immediately file a Notion for a Stay 

Ania, ‘team 92711.9607 of tha entire Order dated January 2, 1580. This stay 

oI) 33 ghould ba sought to Da maintainad until full appel=- 

Ss Samm lates reviev on the merits. I furthar lnatruot you to 

20. Ba HY) aake An intsrlosutory appsal on all svailabla issuss 

Amsln, | roa BUC ar. ans Ban . Tew TOTLI4T g h Ord “Fre tioned in tha 

in aise pecésbar 21st letter cestinue to exist undar Judge 
Ju Ng 1 Juaten's Order. 

Aton, Ste P03) Ad Chisf Elections Officer of the Stats, ? am en. 
: trusted with ths duty of advising and assisting 

Uniturr Carmnarelal Codd slection ausherities vith wagard ve the application, 

10. Ba IO rt operstion, and interprataticn ef ths Elactisn Code 

oi3) 5.7 and election matters gansrally. 7Thare ara numarous 

problsms in izplemantiag the nonpartisan judicial 

EXHIBIT DB 

  

  

 



SENT BY'LIDDELL: SAPP Fel) {- 5-30 ; 1:33PM i LIDDELL: SAPP, EY= H123204111 18 2LY 

R1 14158 HARRIS CO. COMM R DEPT %% 

: : 
  

  

The Honorable Jim Natses 

Page 2 

alections in nine counties in Texas &» gst out in the order, A 

neisf 11st of only some of these problems is ed follows) 

(1) which authority is evtually ordering the elections? 

It appears thay Judges Aunten i» oxdezing the eledticns as his 

order cites on pags 7, Item 81 

swction 41.001(b)(5) ©¢f the Toxas Elaction 

Code which refers to ‘an election held under 

an ordar of & court or gthor tribunal....* 

(2) Thore are humerous esther quaations revolving arsund 

the anewsr te Quostion (1) above, ®.¢., whe gives notice of 

she elestions; whe auvherimes the voting systems to be used 

in the slestions: whe le she sustodian of the election re= 

soxds; and so forth. 

3) Vhish alection precinsts are to be used for the 

selections? 

(4) Whe appoints the election judges? 

{§) As the slestions do not fall within the definition 

of a “pr sisction® in Section 1.00B(1¢) ¢f the Rlectien 

Coda, 43 it to Be Assumed thet thers vill be £0 filing fess 

paid by candidatss, no petiticns in liwu of 2£iling fees, and 

76 Judicial petitions as required in Gertaln counties? 

(6) Mow will the caavess bw conducted? Undex the 

Slevtivn Code; the Governor is tv canvass thes returns for & 

disbeiet offive: Under Seosion $7,012 eof she slecsion Code, 

thie stots canvass may not be held earlier shan she 18th day 

after ths eleasion, $:8., Xay 30. Absentas veting for the 

runoff ie se bagin on ay 14 under the provisiens of the Rlee~ 

vion Cods., Thare is net enough tima for the canvass and 

pepstatin of ballots for abasntes veting to begin for the 

mane * 14 

(7) Whe will be the absenses voting olexke ia Rotor, 

Lubbock, and Midland Counties as she sledtions will net be 

countywide in thoss eounties? 

(8) What will De whe procedure te be weed if a judys 

whose ters is nos on she belles in 1880 vesighe ox dies? Wiild 

the unsxplzed tesm be ea She ballot in May? 

(8) Thare could ba a problem in presarving ths alsction 

results from ths primary runoff in that absantea vot for 

ado 7 election vill begin on April 16 while ths xuno £ is 

  

  

   



        

SENT BY:LIDDELL SAPP ZIVLEjg@ i 1= 5-90 i 1:33PM i LIDDELL: SAPP: (E+ DVLSLUBI II 1 RLY 

2 21 13:58 HARRIS CO. COMM BLP DEFT ee? 

  

The Honorable Jin NRTTOX 
page J 

10) Theze is no provision in the Order for a filing of 

declaration of write-in gaaaidaiy) thus, there will De an 

urber of writesin candidates in tha aleations and 
nd n 

a1} yriteein votes vill have to be countad. 

" (11) vhich political subdivision will Je, the costa of 

conducting che wlections? Harris County wiil have no othe: 

slactions on day 5 and the Stuauy Clerk estimates the cost for 

the election will be some $1 million in Herzie County alone. 

There ers humerous other questions and problems with the implemen- 

sation of Judge Bunton's Order which I will not list in the inter- 

ost of brevity, I am concernad, hovever, that on Page 4 of the 

Order Judge Bunton says: 

... An Agreed Ssttlemant was antered into by and between 

the 2laintifés and Defendants in this matter, but vas not 

approved by some of the Intervenere. 

t would refer you to my lester of pecenbexr 21, 198), in which 1 

obisctad to that proposed settlement and ‘request[ed] that you 

refrain frop entering into such plan and that you refrain from 

entering nto any othar such sett nt or plan without sy prices 

writtan consent.” 

As bi knov, unless the court's order 1s whaped by 

1935, when candidates have been certified snd hallets axe being 

red, the election cycle vill have i prin bayond a point 

x your response in 8 timely mannsz to enable Bs to sek 

{ndspendent counsel, without cost to the state, in the event ie 

vill not abide by my instructions. New counsel would need sdaguate 

time to seek 8 stay DASore mid-January 1990, 

T cok gorvard to BeaTing rom you. 

sincerely,     
cor Judge tuclum D. Bunten, III, Judge, United BTRta&s DiSTIiCT 

Zoice, western pistrict; Midiana-Csssa Division 

  

  

  

 



RCV BY: L.DDELL: ® io1= 4=80 § 2:50PM a 9123204111:8 2 

  

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF TEXAS 

aii MATTOX 
ATTORARY amNERAL 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: ELNA CHRISTOPHER 
THURSDAY, JAN. 4, 199%0 OR RON DU.SEK 

463-2050 OR 463-2082 

NATTOX SEFXE CHANGE IN BOUNTON’S JUDICIAL ORDER! 
URGES CLEMENTE TO CALL IMMEDIATE SPECIAL SESSION 

Attorney General Jim Mattox Thursday announced he is 

filing a motion asking U.S. District Judge Lucius Bunton to 
modify his Jan. 2 order on judicial elections in nine of 
Texas’ most populous counties. 

In a memorandum being filed with the motion to alter 
the Jan. 2 order, Mattox said the order for the non-partisan 

election of judges in 1990: 

* stepped beyond Texas election laws; would be a 

financial burden to the State and its taxpayers: 

* would have & depressive effect on minority voter 

turnout: 

* and should be worked out by the state legislature, a 
majority of which signed onto a joint proposal by Mattox and 

minority plaintiffs that was submitted to the court before 

its Jan. 2 order. 

The Attorney General also said that Gov. Bill Clements 

should jigpedigtely call a special legislative session to 

deal with the judicial natter, as well as school finance 

reform. "The Clock has been ticking away while Bill 

Clements twiddled his thumbs," Mattox said. "When Judca 

Bunten ruled in November, I wrote the governor asking him to 

add judicial elections to the workers compensation session. 

He did not do so. Instead, he went to visit Judge Bunton, 

and the upshot of that visit was to get the deadlines moved 

up on the State. Nov, Clements says he will call a special 

session -- someday. 

=MORE- 

BIN 103-2100 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUNTIN, TKXAH THTII-8348 

EXHBIT C  



RCV BY:LIDOELL ® v 1= 4=80 7 2:51PM a 912320411138 5 

MATTOX 
add 1-1-1 

"The time is now -- not in a month, not this spring -- 
but now,* 

In the xenmorandum, Mattox said: 

"straightforwardly stated, this part of the court’s 

order (electing 118 Judges in nine counties through nen- 

partisan elections) is not a judicial remedy; it is judicial 
reform. The remedial garb ocannot disguise its reform 

character. It cannot be squared with the court’s 
determination that ‘party affiliestion is simply irrelevant 

under the controlling law.’ (Bunton’s Finding of Fact No. 

43: Nov. 8, 1389) 
"The court has given no explanation based in law or 

facts relevant to this case for rejecting century-old state 

election law. It has mada no factual findings on the issue: 

it has exprassed no legal conclusions on it; and it has 

conducted no evidentiary hearing on it. It has simply 
announced it. However broad the court’s equitable powers 
may be, they neither encompass nor justify what the court 

has done. 

"While this forum (the court) is indisputably a proper 
one to resolve whether the rights of minority voters are 

being protected, it is just as indisputably the wrong one 

for debating whether state judges should be elected in nen- 

partisan elections. The Texas legislature and the people of 

Texas, not this court, are the proper judges of that 

debate.” 

Mattox’s memorandum noted that "there are massive gaps 

between the court’s January 2 directive to conduct non- 
partisan judicial elections in 1990 and the statutory 

framework set forth in the Texas Election Code for 

conducting eslactions.” 

For exanmpla, Mattox said, the order fails to designate 

the cofticials responsible for conducting the election; 

including giving notica of tha election, to order election 

supplies, to print the ballots, to appoint election judges 

«MORE= 

 



RCY 8v:LIDDELLs ® i 1= 4-80 + 2:51PM a $123204111:8 4 

. . MATTOX 
: add 2-2-2 

  

  

and clerks for the polling places, to conduct absentee 

voting, and to canvass the election returns. 

"The court’s order is totally silent on these and many 

other integral matters of conducting the election,” Mattox 

said. "This would be a confusing and disruptive electoral 

process’ for all tha voters, including tha minority votars te 

whom the court was supposed to grant relief.” 

Also, Mattox said, Bunton’s Jan. 2 order says not one 

word about candidate filing fees. Under the Texas Election 
Code, candidates pay their filing fees to the Democratic or 
Republican parties, depending on whether they are running as 

Dermccrats or Republicans. There is ne mechanism in the law 

for filing fees in non-partisan elections such as Bunton 

ordered. ’ 

The Secretary of State estimates that conducting 1990 
non-partisan elections in May and June, as Bunton ordered, 

will cost approximately $2 to $2 million more than if 

elections were taking place under the normal primary systen. 

"This iz a financial burden that the taxpayers of Texas 
sizply co not need,” Mattox said. "It’s not fair to them, 
and it does nothing to remedy the minority voting problems 

that the court found. 

"In fact, the non-partisan method was opposed by the 

plaintiffs in this case. Such a method has been widely 
recognized as harmful to minority voters because cof the 

dispropertionately depressive effect on minority voter 

turnout. Simply put, the Voting Rights Act, under which 

Bunton ruled, provides no legal justification for this 

method of electing judges.” 

The memorandum also states: "The court’s directive to 

conduct non-partisan district judge elections in 1990 unduly 

and unnecessarily intrudes into a matter lying within the 

state legislature’s domain. Through his submittal of a 

joint motion urging adoption of the proposed interim plan, 

the Attorney General on behalf of the State of Texas 

harnonized as nuch as possible the court’s November 8 

~MORE~ 

 



  

RCV BY:LIDDELL: '® io 1= 4=50 : 2:52PM a §123204111:8 5 

jog “TEIT AVA _ 

add 3-3-3 

  

  

mandate to revise the state electoral system to protect 
minority voting rights with long-established state policies 
expressed in fundamental state law." 

¥attox said that majorities of both the Senate and 
Houee signed onto the proposal that Mattox and the 
plaintiffs submitted to Bunton. That proposal would have 
“riresdi: “te 2i1ing deadline to January 12, allowed 1890 
elections to move forward with elections by 1egislative, 
county commissioner or justice of the peace districts in the 
nine counties (districts included in Bunton’s Jan. 2 order 
for non-partisan elections) and would have been the least 
radical and disruptive nanner in which to ensure minericy 
voting rights until the legislaturs adopts a permanent plan. 

Mattox’s memorandum to Bunton, being filed Thursday 
afterncon in federal court in Midland, also mentions an 
alternative to the non-partisan method of electing judges 
ordered by Bunton. While still presenting substantial 
difficulties and not being recommended by Mattox, the 
memorandum says, cross-filing is an alternative that the 
court coyld consider. 

Earlier incaranations of state slection law allowed 

cross-£iling in which candidates could file with either or 
both political parties to appear on primary ballots. If a 

candidate cross-filed, the filing fee would be split between 

the two political parties. candidates who cross-filed would 

appear cn both party ballots in the March primaries, and any 

run-off would occur in the November general election. 

i =30= 

 



  

Cu i © py le e301 22030 $123204111:8 2 @ 

  
    

  

  

EXECUTIVE DIVISION 
P.O Bax | 
512 443-5701 
Astin, Texas 7671:-2697 

ELECTIONS DIVISION 
F.0. Box [2060 
212 46)-3%% 

Austin. Texas 78711.2080 

Disclosure Filings Section 
P.C. Box 120 
£12 463-5704 

Austin, Texas 78711.2070 

OATA SKRVICES 

40 
Austin, Texas 74711-2887 

SUPPORT BEIRVICES 
DIVIRON 
TrASEA Munsee 
70. Bos | 
IS 463-5600 

Austin. Texas 78711.2887 

Staff Services 
P.O. Box 12887 
$12 443.8600 
Ausdin, Texas 73711-2887 

STATUTORY FILINGS 
DIVISION 

Corporations 
P.O. Box 13697 
$12 463-5553 
Ausin, Texas 78711-3697 

Swucutory Documents 
F.0. Box 12887 
£12 463.5654 
Ausun, Texas TR711.2887 

Texst Register 
PO. Box !3824 
§.2 463-956) 

Austin, Texas 78711-3824 

Usifoen Coswnerdial Code 
7.0 Box (3193 
$13 475-2708 

Aostin, Texas T711.3193 

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

  

January 4, 1990 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 
Attorney General 
Stata of Texas 
Supreme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RE? eB == 

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

Dear General Mattox: 

In a telephone conversation with Renea Hicks of your 
office this morning, I asked that he consult with you and 
let me know if you were filing a Motion for Stay of the 
referenced Order by Judge Lucius D. Bunton, III. I had 
previously notified you, by letter of December 21, 198% 
of my opposition to your proposed agreed plan. I also had 
delivered to your office at noon teday, a letter centain- 
ing my instruction to you as my Legal Counsel to immedi- 
ately file a stay and an interlocutory appeal on all 
available issues from such Order. It is nov cbvious from 
your rexarks at your 1:30 p.n., press conference today that 
you have no intention of filing a Motion for Stay or 
Interlocutory Appeal in accordance with ny instructions. 

Pleasa be advised that because of your refusal to rapre- 
sent me in accordance with my instructions given to you as 
your client in this matter, I am engaging outside counsel 
at no cost to the State of Texas. Former Secretary of 
State, Attorney General, and Chief Justice of the Texas 
Supreme Court, Judge John Hill has agreed to represent me 
as Secretary of State in this matter. Judge Hill will be 
in contact vith your office and will be filing the ap- 
propriate documents with the Court to substitute as my 
counsel. 

  

GEB:TH/bl/1txrs 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 

EXHIBIT D 

 



    

State of Texas 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
Post Office Box 12697, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

January 4, 1990 

The Honorable John Hill 

Lidell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill and LaBoon 
301 Congress, Suite 1400 
Austin, Texas 78701 

RE: CIVIL ACTION #MO-88-CA-154 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434 ET AL. V. MATTOX ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

  

  

Dear Judge Hill: 

In accordance with our earlier conversations, you are hereby authorized to 

represent me in the above styled and numbered cause. I have, today, notified 

Attorney General Mattox of my decision in this regard. 

I particularly appreciate you doing this on a pro bono basis. 

Again, thank you for your able assistance in representing the interests of the 

electorate of the State of Texas. 

Sincerely, 

  

EXHIBIT E 

 



8S Sham ve 

SENT .BY:LIDDELL, SAPP. ZIVLEY ® 8-80 : 9:57AM 

   ——— 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DIVISION OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND~-ODESSA DIVISION 

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

Plaintiffs, : 

Vv. : NO. MO. 8 

JIM MATTOX, et al., : 

Defendants. } 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that Defendant George S 

Secretary of State and Defendant herein appeals 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit frc 

order of January 2, 1990. 

CARTERG\BAYOUDO3 

EXHIBIT 

‘Liddell, Sapp, 2Z 

INDEPENDENT COUN 

a I= 

RECEIVED 
JAN 0° 7930 

). S. DISTRICT COURT 
'S OFFICE 

2 Deputy 
  

Respectfully sub 

<M 

B-CA-154 

. Bayoud, Jr., 

ko the United 

m the Court’s 

hitted, 

ve, Br. 
  

hn'l. Hill, Jr 
tate Bar No. 00 

Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Comme 
Houston, Texas 
(713) 226-1200 

DEFENDANT GEORGE 
SECRETARY OF STA 

/ 7 

00027 

727600 
ivley, 

rce Tower 
77002 

SEL FOR 
5. BAYOUD, JR., 
TE   

  

7132234510: 8% 6



SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP: ZIVLEY oo 8-90 : 8:58AM dol i 7132234518:8% 7 

RTIF F_SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 
instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 
to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the} Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure this § day of January, 1990. 

22 
John L. Hill, Jr 
  

CAR''ERG\ JLH\BAYOUDO3 

   



SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 : 9:53AM ; 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND~ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. NO. MO-¢& 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

DEFENDANT ’S NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF INDEPENDE 

a 

SE 

RECEIVED 

Joy 09 1990 
1U. 8, DISTRICT COURT 

CLERK'S OFFICE 
  

0 

8-CA-~154 

NT _CCUNSEL 
  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE LUCIUS D. BUNTON: 

NOW COMES George S. Bayoud, Jr., ("Bayoud") 

state and Defendant herein, and files this Notice 

of Independent Counsel in the above-styled and numb 

would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. 

Defendant Bayoud has heretofore informed hi 

record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General ¢ 

Texas, that .he does not support the Mattox/LULAC 1 

the interim plan adopted by the Court, does not 

correct legal principles applicable to this case ha 

by the Court. Further, Defendant Bayoud has reques 

to immediately file an Emergency Application fo! 

Interlocutory Appeal of this Court’s January 2, 1990 

No. MO-88-CA-154 (W.D.Tex.) because time is of the « 

Court’s order would create chaos in the administrati 

EXHIBIT G 

| Secretary of 

of Designation 

ered cause, and 

s attorney of 

hf the State of 

nterim Plan or 

hgree that the 

re been applied 

ted Jim Mattox 

+ Stay and an 

Order in Cause 

ssence and the 

on of the Texas     

7132234514938 2 

Deputy



  

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY OQ 8-90 + 8:54AM 713223451938 3 '® fs 

  

election laws which administration is the legal res 

Defendant Bayoud as Secretary of State. 

II. 

Attorney General Mattox refuses to represen 

State Bayoud’s legitimate interest, views. and desi 

adversary manner, is not affording Secretary of St 

same diligent and faithful representation to whic 

entitled, is failing to adequately represent his cli« 

herein, has made aGUeshents without his client’: 

consent, has failed to inform Bayoud of important de: 

ponsibility of 

Secretary of 

res in a truly 

ate Bayoud the 

th a client is 

nt’s interests 

kncwledge or 

yelopments, has 

engaged in private negotiations with the Pisineisse resulting in 

compromises and agreements unacceptable to Bayoud, 

exists a conflict of interest between Bayoud, ti 

‘Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has breached his 

and instructions and is substituting his personal L 

of his client to placate Plaintiff’s wishes and a 

political agenda. 

ITI. 

Defendant Bayoud has previously informed the At 

in writing of his intent to engage John L. Hill, J 

sapp, zivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas Commerce T 

Texas 77002, as his independent counsel, at no cost 

so as to protect Defendant Bayoud'’s right to legal 

that will maintain a truly adversarial relationsh 

parties and guarantee that Secretary Bayoud’s legal 

fairly and energetically and independently carried 

Exhibit A attached hereto.) 

and ‘there thus 

le client, and 

client's trust 

iews for those 

jvance his own 

'torney General 

r. of Liddell, 

ower , Houston, 

to the State, 

representation 

Lp between the 

sodibioks ave 

forward. (See   
 



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 ; 9:55AM ned 11322340 19:+% 4 

IV. } 

Defendant Bayoud hereby notifies this Honorable Court of the 

designation of John L. Hill, Jr. as his independent c¢ounsel in this 

cause to carry forward his legal positions as above] described. 

Respectfully suithicnad, 

ZX Hee J 
ohn lL. Hill, ovh ~~ = 

State Bar No. 00000027 
Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 197727600 
Liddell, Sapp, Zjivley, 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 226-1200 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR 
DEFENDANT GEORGE gs BAYOUD, JR., 
SECRETARY OF STA[IE : 

  

   

  

  

Vv 

  

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy off the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the| Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure this _.£ day of January, 1990. 

el Jie h. 
John L. Hill, Jr 
  

CARTZIRG\JLE\BAYOUDO1 

  
 



   SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY 

RCV 8v:LIDCELL: § 

; 1— 8-90 : 9:56AM 5123204111- 

JVLEY tote dell LIU : @soko- $123204111:8 2 

118243401998 DO 

      

  

  

JLEGTIONS DIVISION 
P.C. 12060 
23 46)-36%0 
Asma. Temas 771 1.2080 

Disclosure Filings Section 
P.C. Box {300 
$18 463-5704 

Austin, Texas 70711-2070 

DATA SIRVICLS 

443-5600 
Austin, Teas 76711-2087 

IUPPORT SERVICES 
DIVIRION 
Fraansal 
2.0. baa 

313 443-3600 : 

Austin. Texas 78711.2887 

Staff Servicm 
?.0. Box 12887 
$12 463.5600 
Ausdn, Texas 78711-2887 

STATUTORY NILINGS 
DIVISION 
Corporations 
P.O. Bok 13407 
512 463-5359 
Ausiin, Tera 78111-3607 

412 463.3434 ‘ 
Austin, Texas T0711.2887 

Texas Register 
P.0. Box 1344 
5.2 «43-956) 

Austin, Texas 78711-3824 

Unfoum 
rO Bax (3193 
$12 €7527%06 
Aostin. Teas 75711.8193 

  

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATI 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

| 

  

January 4, 1890 

The Honorable Jin Mattox 
Attorney General 
Stata of Taxas : 
suprsma Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711   RE: ny - - 

XT AL. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF 
TEXAS, MIDLAND=ODESSA DIVISION 

  

Dear General Mattox: 

In a teslephone conversation with Renea Hicks of your 
office this morning, I asked that he consult with you and 
let me know if you were filing a Motien for Stay of the 
referenced Order by Judge Lucius D. Hunton, IXXI., I had 
previously notified you, by letter of Decembar 21, 1989 
OZ my opposition to your propesed agreed plan. I alse had 
delivered to your office at noon today|, a letter centain- 
ing my instruction to you as my legal| Counsel to immedi- 
ataly file a stay and an interlocutory appeal on all 
available issues from such Order. It [is nov cbvious from 
your ranarks at your 1:30 p.m. press ccnference today that 
you have no intention of filing a lfotion for Stay or 
Interlocutory Appeal in accordance with ny instructions. 

Please ba advised that becauss of youfp refusal to rapre- 
sent me in accordance with ny instructions given to you as 
your client in this matter, I am engaging otlitside counsel 
at no cost to the State of Texas. Ilormer Secratary of 
State, Attornsy General, and Chief Jistice of the Texas 
Supreme Court, Judge John Hill has agreed to represent me 
as Sagcretary of Stata in this matter. | Judge Hill vill be 
in contact with your office and willl be filing the ap- 
propeisce docuzents with the Court tp substituta as my 
counsel. : 

EXHIBIT A 

C8BITH/bl/1txs 

An Equal Opportualty Employer 

  
 



   s 1— 8-90 110:U2AM 1 1022040 10 v# 12 "SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP: ZIVLEY ® 8 hg 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs—-Appellees, 

V. NO. 
  

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

9
 

1)
 
(h

(a
) 

th
 

tO
 

CN
 

0)
 

Oy
 

Defendants-Appellants. 

SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE BAYOQUD'S 
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Defendant, Secretary of State George Bayoud, mo 

for entry of an immediate stay of an Order ent 

Bon. Lucius D. Bunton in Cause No. MO-88-CA-154 (W 

January 2, 1990, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a) (1, 

and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procec 

following reasons: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
  

1. "Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appell: 

provides that this Emergency Application for Stay m: 

this Court because application to the District ( 

practicable in this case. The District Court has a. 

all applications for stay by the Defendant and Interv 

case. Accordingly, further applications for stay to 

Court would be a futile act and impracticable withi: 

of Rule 8(a). 

EXHIBIT H 

yes the Court 

ered by the 

LD. Tex.) on 

and 1292(b) 

ure, for the 

ite Procedure 

ly be made to 

lourt is not 

| ready denied 

enors in this 

the District 

h the meaning   
 



    

  

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY | 1= 8-90 10:03AM 12320411 |= [1822340 199#% 10 

2. Additionally, this Emergency Application fof Stay adopts 

and is made in support of the Emergency Application fpr Stay which 

was filed by Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant Dallas Cojnty District 

Judce F. Harold Entz ("Entz Application for Stay"), apd Defendant- 

Intervenor-Appellant Harris County District Judge €&harolyn Wood 

("Wcod Application for Stay") in this proceeding jon or about 

January 3, 1990. To allow the expeditious filing of this 

Application, all references to Court Documents [in Bayoud's 

application for Stay may be found in the Entz Applicatfion for Stay, 

and do not independently accompany this Application]. Secretary 

Bayoud will send all referenced documents under sepafate cover as 4 

soon as possible. 

3. Further, this Emergency Application €£pr Stay is 

independently made pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure on behalf of Bayoud. 

4. This emergency stay is requested in order {to prevent a 

chaotic condition being created within the judiciaryjof the State 

of Texas prior to this Court's having an opportunity Fo review the 

District Court's Order. 

S. Plaintiffs in this action seek to apply Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, to the district cpurts of nine 

urban counties in Texas. Those nine counties include Harris, 

Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Midland, Jefferson, Lubbock, and 

Ector Counties. Plaintiffs claimed that county-wide, partisan 

elections of judges in those counties unlawfully dilutled the voting   
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP. ZIVLEY 7; 1— 8-90 10:03AM Cl VAC AU I I hd 

rights of minority voters and that the system « 

elections was unconstitutionally discriminatory. 

6. George Bayoud is a Defendant herein, and : 

State of Texas is the chief election officer of Tex 

the legal duty of administrating the election laws 

7. Trial of Plaintiffs’ claims was held duri 

September 18, 19889. On November 8, 1989, the « 

entered an Order finding in favor of Plaintiff: 

counties (the "November Order," see Exhibit C of Er 

for Stay), though also finding that Texas’ system 

elections does not violate the Constitution. In 

numerous factual and legal defenses to Plaintiffs’ c. 

ruling for Plaintiffs, the district court no 

application of the Voting Rights Act to judicial ele 

a sphere of icy certainty." (See Exhibit C = 

Application for Stay). 

8. The November Order requested the Governor 

the issue of judicial election to the agenda fc 

session of the Texas Legislature scheduled to a 

compensation reform; the November Order indicated th 

court would consider interim relief if no state-spon 

presented by January 3, 1990, the filing deadline 

elections. On December 11, 1989, Governor Clements 

the parties met with the District Court, at the Gove: 

The Governor advised the District Court that it woul 

for the State of Texas to propose a plan before 

Je 

I IOLLORVY ID IW I4 

bf county-wide 

ls Secretary of 

ls charged with 

of Texas. 

ng the week of 

listrict court 

bin all nine 

tz Application 

of county-wide 

addressing the 

laims, although 

ted that the 

bictions "is not 

t 93 of Entz 

pf Texas to add 

r the special 

Hdress workers 

at the district 

Bored plan were 

for the 1990 

And counsel for 

rnor!s request. 

i be impossible 

January 3 and    



   SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY C 8-80 10:04AM 7132234518:3%8190 5123204 4 1 

requested the District Court to allow more time for 

consider a remedy, while simultaneously permitting 

appeal of the November Order. 

Application for Stay). 

9, The District Court did not agree to permi 

time and instead solicited submission of "interim plan 

a framework for holding the 1990 Texas judicial el 

December 21, 1989, Plaintiffs and the Attorney Gene: 

objection of all other individual State Defendants, 

E-3, G of Entz Application for Stay) submitted a proj 

plan (the "Mattox-LULAC Plan," see Exhibit E=-2 of Ent 

for Stay) for the 1990 elections. Essentially, the 

Plan assigns judicial spots to state legislative or 

in a form of quasi-single member districts. It ref 

wide jurisdiction and venue, but restricts voting to 

the district. Because the number of judicial positio 

than the number of legislative districts, some 

districts would get "extra" judges; the districts 

minority populations were allocated the "extra" Jjuc 

Additionally, the Mattox-LULAC plan effectively me 

system of judicial specialization through civil, crim 

and juvenile sires and the continuity of court 

permitting the presiding administrative judge for e. 

assign specializations and dockets to winning candida 

election. 
  

(See Exhibit H at 

the state to 

an expedited 

b. 3. 0f Ent 

t additional 

5" tc provide 

ections. On 

al (over the 

see Exhibits 

posed interim 

z Application 

Mattox-LULAC 

JP districts 

rains county- 

voters within 

ns is greater 

legislative 

with higher 

jicial seats. 

ngles Texas' 

inal, family, 

dockets by 

hich county to 

tes after the 
    
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY 

    

i 1— B—80 :10:UDAM DIZscu4t 1 I= 

10. On January 2, 1990, the district court enter 

modified form of the Mattox-LULAC Plan (the "January 

Exhibit M of gntz Application for Stay). Most signifi 

having ruled (improperly) that the partisan natu: 

judicial elections was irrelevant to a Voting Rights A 

Exhibit C at 88-89 of Entz Application for Stay), the . 

abolishes partisan judicial elections in Texas, alll 

partisan general election on May 5 with a runoff on . 

The Order preserves the aspect of the Mattox-LUL! 

to run for numbered requires candidates "places" 

election districts; only after the election 

"Administrative Judge" determine whether the voters 

a judge of a civil, criminal, family or juvenile court 

this further confuses voters in their already-difficu 

make an informed choice between judicial candidates, s 

legal experience in a particular area is of guestional 

to a voter given that no one will know until after 

what type of bench the prevailing candidate will occ: 

11. Secretary of State George Bayoud had previou 

the district court to certify its November Order for 

appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

pending resolution of that appeal. 

Application for Stay). 

granted the request to certify the November Order for 

Appeal and denied all requests for stay (see Exhibit B 

Application for Stay) and called for its interim 

-5- 

§ 1292(b) and withhold any i 

(See Exhibit 

In its January Order, the di 

{ 1OLLOSV IDI | VL 

ed a slightly 

| Order," see 

rantly, after 

e of Texas' 

ct claim (see 

 aHaErY Order 

hg fcr a non- 

june 2, 1990. 

\C Plan that 

in special 

will the 

have elected 

. Of course, 

Lt efforts to 

ince now even 

ple relevance 

the election 

DY . 

sly requested 

interlocutory 

nterim order 

D of Pntz 

strict court 

interlocutory 

at & of Entz 

plan to take   
 



  

1 1944040109349 10 
SENT BY:LIDDELL., SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-90 10:07AM a i= 

  

procedural arguments and others showing the error i 

Order are stated more fully in Judge Entz's Objectio 

for Stay (Exhibit F of Entz Application for Stay), 

Trial Brief, which George Bayoud incorporates by 2atprencs 

13. Finally, the January Order is in error becs 

to give the State of Texas a reasonable opportunit: 

remedies. As the Covernos abled in the December 11 n 

his letter (see Exhibit G-3 of Entz Application f 

district court did not permit sufficient time £ 

legislature to consider judicial selection. As the 

aware, in the fall special session the Texas leg 

occupied with the culmination of a four-year effort 

Texas workers compensation system, and will be simil 

this spring with an earlier judicially-required overt 

school financing. Additionally, as the Governor not 

h the January 

ns and Motion 

and his Post- 

use it failed 

yg to consider 

eeting and in 

or Stay) the 

br the Texas 

Court is well 

jislature was 

to reform the 

arly involved 

aul of public 

ed, providing 

a reasonable time for the legislature to consider the issue would 

concurrently give this Court time to review tt 

liability findings in the November Order to dete: 

destruction of the Texas judicial system is really n 

14. The risk of irreparable harm here is dramat 

of an interim remedy in this action through requir: 

single member judicial districts will inevitably rest 

turnover in judicial personnel; some judges will dete 

is rot worth the effort for them to struggle for a £ 

under circumstances that will change. If the ruling 

is subsequently overturned by this Court, as Geor 

-7- 

e underlying 

‘mine whether 

lecessary. 

ic. Adoption 

lng a form of 

lt in massive 

rmine that it 

our-~year term 

on liability 

ge Eayoud is   
 



   
SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ; 1— 8-90 310:UBAM DILILU4 It 1 110cco4D low d 

immediate effect. On January 5, 1990, George Bayeid filed his 

Notice of Appeal from the January Order. In view off the January 

Order, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal and motion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292{a)(l1). 

12. Aside from the substantive errors in the Jgnuary Order, 

the Order is insufferably insensitive to the complexities of Texas 

election procedures. 

In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is 
entitled to and should consider the proximity of a 

forthcoming election and the mechanics and compliexities 

of state election laws, and should act and relly upon 

general equitable principles. With respect to the timing 

of relief, a court can reasonably endeavor to javoid a 

disruption of the election process which might] result 

from requiring precipitate changes that cou.d make 

unreasonable or embarrassing demands on a State in 

adjusting to the requirements of the court's dedree. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964) (emphasis ¢gdded, quoted 
  

in Chisom v. Roamer, 853 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir.|1988)). As 
  

indicated in the objections to the Mattox-LULAC Pijan from the 

Secretary of State (see Exhibit G-1 of Entz Applicati¢n for Stay), 

the January Order fails to consider the complexitigs of Texas’ 

electoral system. Further, the January Order fails t¢ account for 

the logistical requirements of closing candidate ffiling enough 

ahead of the election to permit ballot preparation jand absentee 

voting; it fails to provide for time or costs in publishing notice 

of the election; it fails to provide for sufficient time for a 

canvass of the returns before the runoff. The Janupry Order is 

plainly a "precipitate change{] that [w]ould make junreasonable 

[and] embarrassing demands on a State in adjusting to the 

requirements of the court's decree.” These subgtantive and 

-G~   
 



SENT BY:LIDDELL., SAPP, ZIVLEY i 1- 8-90 10:08AM 3 a 

NEED FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF 
  

17. In order to preserve the regularity and c 

judicial elections, George Bayoud respectfully reque: 

relief, and requests that hearing of this motior 

telephone conference call at the earliest possible 

given the inconsistency between the terms of the Janu 

the schedule for current judicial election procedure: 

law. 

18. The deadline for filing for office under « 

law was January 2, 1989. The District Court waited un 

day to enter its interim plan. This last minute o! 

"consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and 

and complexities of state election laws," Reynolds v. 

71322345919 :820 

ontinuity of 

ts immediate 

| be had by 

opportunity 

ry Order and 

s under state 

furrent Texas 

til that very 

der fails to 

the mechanics 

Sims, supra, 
  

and will cause severe and unfair consequences unles: 

stayed. In particular, the January Order comes sO 

long-scheduled March 13 primaries that if it is nof 

stayed, the 1990 judicial elections will have been 

disrupted. 

19. Initially, unless this Court takes actior 

January Order before January 12, it will be difficult 

positions to be included in the March 13 primaries 

permits sbrentee voting to commence sixty days before 

Tax. Elec. Code Ann. § 84.007. In order to have bal 

in time for the election and absentee voting, party 

required to certify to the Secretary of State the lis 

filed and qualified candidates sixty days before 

-Q- 

the 

immediately 

close to the 

r immediately 

irremediably 

to stay the 

for judicial 

. State law 

the election. 

lots prepared 

chairmen are 

t of properly 

election.    



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY % 1— 8—=80 :10:UBAM a |= 1 1OLLO4D 1 TIM 1D 

confident it will be, there is no way to undo the ipstability to 

the institution of the judiciary of the State of Tekas that will 

obviously take place in the interim, 

15. Essentially for the same reasons, the puplic intevest. 

supports a stay. George Bayoud calls the Court's attlention to its 

opinions in Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1988), Rangel 
  

v. Mattox, No. 89-6226 (Sth Cir. Dec. 5, 1989), gnd Rangel v. 
  

  

Mattox, No. 89-6226 (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 1990). Those} opinions are 

the only other instances known to Secretary Bayoud|in which the 

issue presented here has been addressed. In both instances, this 

Court found that a stay was proper. The same reasons apply with 

greater force here. The degree of disruption t¢ one of the 

coordinate branches of the sovereign state government|is egregious. 

16. Considering the massive impact on the State|of Texas that 

would result if a stay were not entered, a lower than usual 

standard of likelihood of success on the merits is| appropriate. 

Ruis v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981) |("movant need 
  

only present a substantial case on the merits when a [serious legal 

questions is involved and show that the balance of ecuities weighs 

heavily in favor of granting a stay"). Although [peorcge Bayoud 

certainly believes that the arguments in this motion and the 

incorporated trial court pleadings demonstrate a [likelihood of 

success, it seems beyond question that, at minimum, [they vpresent 

a substantial case on the merits," and thus a stay is justified.   
 



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8—90 10:10AM 3 dni 113223401982 | 

This permits the Secretary of State to provide the names to the 

ballot printers in time for the election and absentee poting. This 

year, the date for certification of candidates is Janupry 12, 1990. 

See 1 Tex. Adm. Code § 81.113 (proposed at 14 Tex} Reg. 5398, 

adopted at 14 Tex. Reg. 6075). Thus, if this Court] is going to 

issue a stay in order to prevent unnecessary disruption of the 

existing judicial election system, it must act befor¢ January 12. 
  

EE 
  

20. Additionally, if judicial candidates acting in reliance 

upon the January Order withdraw their filing under| the current 

system and refile under the terms of the January Ord¢r, taney will 

be unable to refile if a stay is granted, because the|deadline for 

filing under the existing system has passed. Every day that passes 

while the January Order is in effect increases tle risk that 

candidates will become ineligible for this reason. 

21. Finally, the realities of political campaigns require 

that candidates have some reasonable time to campaign for office. 

The March 13 primary is only some ten weeks away. | If judicial 

candidates are to be on the ballot for the March 13 primary, they 

need time to appeal to the voters, solicit sypport, seek 

endorsements, prepare and run advertisements, crganize the 

precincts, and take all of the other steps that are enfailed in the 

political process. 

22. As stated in the letter from Secretary of |State Bayoud 

to the district court (Exhibit H-1 of Entz Application for Stay and 

Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto), the logistiical problems 

created for the State of Texas in trying to implement the January 

«10-   
 



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY ® 8-80 10:11AM » a 2 I 10cLo4V 10 Iimce 

order are significant in and of themselves. In its urjseemly haste 

to enter some kind of interim order, the district cour{ has plainly 

failed to acknowledge the magnitude of the disruptionjit proposes. 

As this Court state in Chisom: 

Our analysis begins with the staunch admonitjon that 

a federal court should jealously guard and sparingly use 

its awesome powers to ignore or brush aside long-standing 

state constitutional provisions, statutes, and prgctices. 

There can be no doubt that under the Supremacy [Clause, 

federal courts do and indeed must have this authqrity in 

our unique form of government. It is the use of this 

power that must be maintained in the balance, a tbalance 

which is more delicate than usual when a state's judicial 
process is involved. 

Chisom, supra, 853 F.2d at 1189 (footnote omitted).| Similarly, 
  

here, given the district court's failure to heed fhis Court's 

staunch admonition, this Court should stay the distfrict court's 

intemperate order, as it did in Chisom and Rangel. 

WHEREFORE, George Bayoud requests that this Count vacate the 

District Court's Order enjoining the election of [exas' state 

district judges under the present system in the [nine target 

counties at issue in this suit, that it stay the impl¢mentation of 

the Interim Plan adopted by the District Court, and jthat it stay 

all further proceedings in the District Lourt, ineclyding without 
Ar ————— ——— ec. 

  

Raa 

limitation ‘the promulgation or implementation of any other remedial 
  

a an ps ETNA 

plan, ERA “appeal of the District Court's Mencranden Opinion and 

VET 

Order of November 8, 1989 as amended. 

-11-   
 



    

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of 

3 1— 8-90 10:12AM ks 3 Cd {1 OLLOHV ID IyHLO 

Respectfully subnjitted, 

  

   

    

State Bar No. 

Andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 

Ja 
onn L,, Hi1lY, Jr. 

00C00027 

197127600 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley. 

Hill & LaBoon 
3300 
Houston, Texas 

(713) 226-1200 

Texas Commerice Tower 

717002 

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR 
DEFENDANT GEORGE € . BAYOUD, JR., 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the 
of Appellate Procedure this 

i:\usars\carterg\jlh\bayoud04 

  

Federal Rules 

day of January, 1990. 

  

he PH LE EF 

“l=   
 



    

  

  

EXECUTIVE DIVISION 
PO. Box 12687 
Austin, Ten 7(711:2697 
(512) 463.5701 

ELECTIONS DIVISION 
£0. Bax 12060 
Austin, Texas 78711-2060 
(312) 403-38 

Disclosure Filings 
FO. Bx 1200 
Austin, Texat T717}5.2070 
(S12) 463-3704 

DATA SERVICES 
DIVISION 
PO. Box 13397 
Avotin, Tomes 74711-3487 
(512) 4438609 

SUPPORT SERVICES 
DIVISION 
Flmaneial nem 
P.O. Bx 

(511) 463-3600 

Staff Services 
P.O. Box 12887 
Austin, Tess 78711-3887 
($12) 463-$600 

STATUTORY FILINGS 
DIVISION 
Corpomtians 
PO. Bom 13687 
Austin, Texas 78711-3697 
(512) 445-9888 

Stnasory Domasncrts 
PO. Bx 12887 
Austin, Tunas 73711-2987 
(512) 463-5684 

Teast Ragister 
FO. Bae 13824 
Avi. Texas TE711-3824 
(12) 443-338) 

Uniform Cameercial Cods 
PO. Bx 13193 
Austin, Texas 78711-3193 

(S12) 476-2708 

SENT BY:LIDDELL. SAPP, ZIVLEY 3s 1= 8-80 10:12AM RDieasLua i 1 

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

George S. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

{ OLLI S VV IU yr 

fevinasbmiind 

  

January 4, 19580 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Attorney General 
State of Texas 

Supreme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: CIVIL ACTION #MO-88-CA=-154 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434 ET AL V. Mattox ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, MIDLAND=ODESSA DIVISION 

Dear General Mattox: 

As T told you in my letter to you of December 21, 

1989, I opposed the proposed agread order which you 

were negotiating with the plaintiffs, Apong the 

reasons were that it would be difficult to ad- 

minister; some citizens may effectively pe dis- 

enfranchized in elections under the proppsed plan; 

and my belief that judicial selection is a matter for 

the Texas Legislature to address. None-the-less, you 

submitted tha plan and the court in grea part 

adopted the plan, Therefore, as 2 named defendant in 

the referenced cause, I am instructing ypu as my 

lagal counsel to immediately £ile a Motipn for a Stay 

of the entire Order dated January 2, 1998p. This stay 

shoud be sought to be maintained until fill appellate 

review on the merits, I further instruck you €o make 

an interlocutory appeal on all available) issues from 

  
‘such Order. The problems mentioned in that December 2let 

jettar continue to exist under Judge Bun on's Oxder. 

As Chief Elections Officer of the State,| I am entrusted 

with the duty of advising and assisting lection 

authorities with regard to the applicatipn, operatien, 

and interpretation of the Election Code pnd election 

matters generally. There are numerous problems in 

implementing the nonpartisan judicial 

An Eas! Oceartunitr Emolover 

EXHIBIT A   
 



; SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP: ZIVLEY 3p l= B=YU LU 14mm VIE&QLVS LL f Wb Tw | WITT Ww 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Page 2 

alections in nine counties {in Texas as set out in the order. A 

brief list of only some of these problems is as follgwsi 

(1) Which authority is actually ordering tlie eloctions? 

It appears that Judge Bunton is ordering the eleftions as his 

order cites on page 1, Item 6 

section 41.001(b)(3) of the Taxas Election 

Code which refers to "an election held under 

an order of a court or other tribunal.,..." 

(2) There are numerous other quastions ravblving arsund 

the ansver to Question (1) above, e.g., vho gives notice of 

the elections; who authorises the voting systens to be usad 

in the elections; who is the custodian of the [election re- 

cords; and so forth. 

§3) Which slectien precincts are to be used for the 

elections? 

(¢) ¥ho appoints the election judges? 

(5) As the slections do not fall within the definition 

of a "primary election’ in Section 1.005(14) off the Blection 

Code, is it to be assumed that there vill be np filing fees 

id by candidates, no petitions in lieu of filing fees, and 

no judicial petitions as required in certain counties? 

{8 How will the canvass be conducted} Under the 

election Code, the Governor is to canvass the peturns for a 

district office. Under Section 67.012 of the Xlection Code, 

this state canvass may not be held earlier than the 15th day 

after the election, {.e., Nay 20. Absentee whiting for the 

runoff is to begin on Xay 14 under the provision) of the Rlec- 

tion Code. There is not enough time for thg canvass and 

preparation of ballots for absantes voting to begin for the 

Juna 2 runoff. ‘ 

(7) Who will ba the absentee voting ig in Ector, 

Lubbock, and Midland Counties as the election will not be 

countyvwida in those counties? 

(8) What will be the procedure to be uspd if a Judas 

vhose term is not en the ballot in 1380 resigns pr diss? Will 

the unexpired tarm be on the ballot in May? 

(9) There could be a problem in preserving the election 

results from tha primary runoff in that absant/es voting for 

the May 5 election will begin on April 16 while the runoff is 

april 10.    



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY vy I= BYU + iU+s 104M MIEQLTw LAT | Wd le "TW 1 DTT he 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Fage 3 

(10) There is no provision in the Orders for |a £iling of 

declaration of write-in candidacy; thus, there [will be an 

unlimited numbar of write-in candidates in the elijscticns and 

all vrite-in votes vill have to De counted. 

(11) Which political subdivision will pay the coats of 

conducting the elections? Harris County will have ro other 

elections on May § and the County Clerk estimates the cost for 

the election will be some $1 million in Harris Ccunty alone. 

Thare are numerous other questions and problems with tlle implemen- 

tation of Judge Bunteon's Order which I will not list ip the inter 

est of brevity. 1 am concerned, however, that on Page 4 of the 

Order Judge Bunton says:   ... An Agraed Settlement was entered into by and llatvedn 

the Plaintiffs and Defendants in this matter, but vas not 

approved by some of the Intervenors. 

          

   

   

   

1 would refer you to my latter of pacember 21, 1989, in which I 

objected to that proposed settlement and ‘request{ef] that you 

refrain from entering into such plan and that you refrain from 

entering into any other such settlement or plan withcut my prior 

written consent.’ 

AB you know, unless the court's order is stayed by mld-January 

199, when candidates have been certified and ballets are being 

prepared, the election cle will have progressed hejyond a point 

at which it may reasonably be altered. Furthermore, jt is impor- 

tant that the lsgislature have a reasonable pericd|of time to 

address this issue in a special session. As a resuly, I need to 

know whether you vill seek the stay in accordance with|my instruoc- 

tion. I need your response in a tinely manner to enable me to seek 

independent counsel, without cost to the state, in the event you 

vill not abide by my instructions. New counsel would n adequate 

time to seek a stay befors mid-January 1930. 

1 look forvard to hearing from you. 

incerely, 

  

G&EB831TH/blltzs 

ccs Judge Lucius D. Bunton, III, Judge, United States Listrict 

Court, Western District, Xidland-Odessa Division 

  
 



    SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY i 1— 8-90 10:16AM hi242V41 11 i 10cco40 IDM! 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

Page 4 

Clerk, United States District Court, Western District, 

Xidland-Odessa Division 

Ne. Mary P. Feller 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

¥r. Javier Guajarde 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 0. Box 12548, Capitcl Station 

austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Mr. william L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75223 

Mr. Rolando Rios 
Southwest voter Registration & 

Education Project 
201 Korth St. Nary's, Suite 521 

gan Antonio, Texas 78205 

Xa. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Ms. Gabrielle XK. ¥cDonald 

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050 
Austin, Taxas 78701 

Kr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Nullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C. 

3301 Rim Btreet 
Dallas, Texas 73226-16137 

Mr. J. Rugene Clements 

porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

Houston, Texas 77003-2730 

Mr. Robert RK. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 

2600 Momentum Place 

1717 Kain Street 

Dallas, Texas 75301   
 



   
SENT BY:LIDDELL., SAPP, ZIVLEY 3 1— B=HU IU 11am D1LoLuUa [EVR rene, CEE = 

The Honorable Jim Mattox 

page 5 

The Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Governor, State of Texas 

Phe Honorable William P., Hobby 

Lieutenant Governor, Stata of Texas 

The Honorable Gibson D. Lawvis 

Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thomas R. Phillips 

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas 

  
 



    

@ Amt Ne 

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP. ZIVLEY ; 1— 8-90 : 9:58AM ; 5123204111= 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Ve 
NO. 

7132234519:% 8 

  

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

0)
 

Wn
 

LO
T 

LO
D 

LO
D 

UN
 

LO
N 

LO
Y 

LN
 

LO
N 

Defendants-Appellants. 

DEFENDANT’/S NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF INDEPENDE? 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

NOW COMES George S. Bayoud, Jr., ("Bayoud"), 

State and Defendant herein, and files this Notice 

of Independent Counsel in the above-styled and numbe 

would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. 

Secretary of 

hf Designation 

red cause, and 

Defendant Bayoud has heretofore informed hig attorney of 

record, the Honorable Jim Mattox, Attorney General ¢ 

Texas, that he does not support the Mattox/LULAC I 

the interim plan adopted by the Court, does not 

correct legal principles applicable to this case hav 

by the Court. Further, Defendant Bayoud has reques 

to immediately file an Emergency application fo: 

Interlocutory Appeal of this Court'’s January 2, 1990 

No. MO-88=-CA-154 (W.D.Tex.) because time is of the ¢ 

Court’s order would create chaos in the administrati 

election laws which administration is the legal res 

Defendant Bayoud as Secretary of State. 

I EXHIBIT 

if the State of 

nterim Plan or 

jgree that the 

G pen suptied 

ted Jim Mattox 

+ Stay and an 

Order in Cause 

jsgence and the 

bn of the Texas 

ponsibility of   
 



   
* Shmt wwe 

SENT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY eo 8-90 3 9:58AM ; 

  

, ——— 

5123204111 

  

II. 

Attorney General Mattox refuses to represent 

State Bayoud’s legitimate interest, views and desi: 

adversary manner, is not affording Secretary of Sti 

same diligent and faithful representation to whic 

entitled, is failing to adequately represent his clie 

herein, has made agreements without his client’s 

consent, has failed to inform Bayoud of important dev 

engaged in private negotiations with the Plaintiff 

compromises and agreements unacceptable to Bayoud, 

exists a conflict of interest between Bayoud, tbh 

Mattox, the lawyer. In sum, Mattox has breached his 

and instructions and is substituting his personal v 

of his client to placate Plaintiff’s wishes and a 

political agenda. 

III. 

Defendant Bayoud has previously informed the At 

in writing of his intent to engage John L. Hill, J 

Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas Commerce 1T 

Texas 77002, as his independent counsel, at no cost 

so as to protect Defendant Bayoud'’s right to legal 

that will maintain a truly adversarial relationsh 

parties and guarantee that Secretary Bayoud’s legal 

fairly and energetically and independently carried 

Exhibit A attached hereto.) 

7132234518:#% © 

Secretary of 

res in a truly 

hte Eayoud the 

h a client is 

nt’s interests 

knowledge or 

elopnents, has 

resulting in 

and there thus 

e client, and 

client’s trust 

iews for those 

Avance his own 

torney General 

r. of Liddell, 

ower , Houston, 

to the State, 

representation 

ip between the 

positions are 

forward. (See   
 



FATS AN , —— 

SENT B%:LIDDELL., SAPP, ZIVLEY C} 8-90 10:00AM 3 5123204111= 7132234519:%810 

IV. 

Defendant Bayoud hereby notifies this Honorable Court of the 

designation of John L. Hill, Jr. as his independent ¢ounse2l in this 

cause to carry forward his legal positions as above described. 

AVE, suthitted, 

- 7 7 

" Ll Ma 
Joan L. Hill, J%. ~v 

ate Bar No. 50005027 

andy Taylor 
State Bar No. 19727600 

Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, 
Hill & LaBoon 

3300 Texas Commerce Tower 
Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 226-1200 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANT GEORGE |S. BAYOUD, JR., 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

to all attorneys of record, in accordance with the| Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure this day of January, 1990. 

an 
4/4 ohn L. Hill, Jz 

  

CARTERG\JLE\BAYOUDOL 

   



   SEMT BY:LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLE ) 

SC 3Y:LIODELLI SAPP: 2IVLEY 1] 

  

~ JUS IVs UU AM, 5123204111 > 
3 1= 8-30 (10:01AM 5123 

   

   
111=- 

* Ye 4m80 r 2:24PM S12483584p 

7132234519 ; #11 

7132234519811 

$123204111:8 2 

  

  
  

  

  

  

Austin, Teas 71711-20% 

DATA SIRYICLS 
{VIRION 
® 0. Rem 12087 
$13 «43-3600 
Austin, Tams 71711-2887 

Auktin. Texas 90713.2807 

aff Serviem 
P O. Box 13887 
$12 463-8600 
usin, Tezes 71711-2887 

STATUTORY MILINGS 
DIVIRION 

le orpOrs ions 
2.0. Box 13697 
$12 463.8558 
Mim, Tesas 99911.9699 

Austin, Texas T2711 .2887 

Terst Register 
PO. Box 13534 
1 2 943-936) 
dustin, Tesas 78711.3824 

lafom Cowmerdal Code 
0 Bem 393 
113 ¢75.2%¢ 
home, Texas %W%11.3100 

  

Office of the 

SECRETARY OF STATE 
George 8. Bayoud, Jr. 
SECRETARY OF STATE 

    January 4, 1890 

The Honorable Jia Mattox 
Attorney General 
State of Taxas 
Suprsme Court Building 
Austin, Texas 78711 

RR: =B88-CA= 
ATIOX ET AL, VNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MRSTERN DISTRICT or TEXAS, MIDLAND=ODE SSA DIVISION 

Dear General Mattox: 

In a telephone conversatien vith Rahea Hicks of your   office this morning, I asked that he o let me know if you were filing a Moti referenced Order by 
   

Judge Lucius D. § nton, III. Previously notified you, by letter of Decaiber 21, 198s Of my opposition to your Proposed agredd plan, 

   Interlocutory Appeal in accordance vit 

Please be advised that because of you: sent me in accordance with Ry instructions your client in this matter, I am engaging at no cost to the State of Texas. 

cbvious from 
fererice today that 

& Yotion for Stay or 
Ry instructions. 

to rapre- 
given to you as 
outside counsel 

Jormer Secretary ofr State, Atterney General, and Chief Ju tice of the Texas 

   
Supreme Court, Judge John Hill has agr as Secretary of State in this matter, in centact vith your office and will 

Jud 
ed to represent me 

ge Hill will be 
be £1} the ap- propriate documents with the Court th substitute as my counsel. : 

Bay Jr. 

  

CERITR/bl/1trs 

An Equal Opportunity Employer   
EXHIBIT A