Appellant Judge Entz's Motion for Divided Oral Argument

    HUGHES & LUCE 
1717 MAIN STREET 

SUITE 2800 
DALLAS, TEXAS 7520! 

  

1021 MAIN STREET (214) 939-5500 Il CONGRESS AVENUE 
SUITE I300 FAX (214) 939-6100 SUITE 900 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 TELEX 730836 AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870! 
(713) 754-5200 (312)482-6800 

FAX (713) 754-5206 FAX (512) 482-6859 

Direct Dial Number 

(214) 939-5581 

  

October 28, 1991 

rd 

VIA TELECQPY AND 
CERTIFIED MAIL RRR 

    

Gilber¥Y F. Ganucheau, Clerk 
U. S./Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 
600 Camp Street 

New/Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 
et al. v. F. Harold Entz, et al., Cause No. 90-8014 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed please find an original and eight copies of 
Appellant Judge Entz's Motion for Divided Oral Argument for 
filing in the above-referenced case. 

Please return a file-marked copy to me in the enclosed 
envelope. Please note that copies of the above document are 
being sent as indicated in the certificate of service to the 

other parties. 

uly yours, 

Bobby M. Rubarts 

BMR/phl 

Enclosures 

 



    

  

- 

HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P. 

Mr. Gilbert R. Ganucheau, Clerk 

October 28, 1991 

Page 2 

cc: (CERTIFIED MAIL RRR with enclosures) 
William L. Garrett 
Rolando Rios 
Susan Finkelstein 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Renea Hicks 
J. Eugene Clements 
Seagal V. Wheatley 
Walter L. Irvin 

 



  

No. 90-8014 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Ve 

F. HAROLD ENTZ, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants 

  

APPELLANT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Appellant Judge F. Harold Entz ("Judge Entz") moves the 

Court to apportion the time for oral argument for the 

following reasons: 

1. This case involves an attack on the judicial system 

of the State of Texas under section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Judge Entz is a sitting state criminal 

district judge in Dallas County, Texas. He has been an active 

litigant in the court below, having defended Dallas County 

during the trial of the case, as well an active participant in 

each step of the appeal of this case. 

2. Judge Entz has also maintained throughout this action 

legal positions that were and are materially different from 

those presented by the Texas Attorney General. For example, 

APPELLANT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION 
R \'A D ORAL — Page 1 

 



  

in the United States Supreme Court, Judge Entz, who was denied 

the opportunity to present oral argument, supported the 

rationale of the Fifth Circuit en banc panel, which position 

the Texas Attorney General expressly disavowed. When 

questioned specifically by Justice Scalia regarding Judge 

Entz's position, the Texas Attorney General did not advance 

Judge Entz's arguments. 

3. Additionally, Judge Entz, from the beginning, has 

argued that the state interest should be considered in the 

manner that has now been mandated by the Supreme Court. 

Substantial evidence regarding Texas' interest in maintaining 

the delicate balance between accountability and independence 

in the judiciary was advanced by Judge Entz's witnesses. 

Moreover, Judge Entz consistently has argued that the 

construction of Section 2 applied by the district court is for 

several reasons unconstitutional, which again the Texas 

Attorney General does not argue. Judge Entz wants to argue 

these positions to this Court and understands that the Texas 

Attorney General does not intend to make all or any of these 

arguments. 

4. Accordingly, Judge Entz requests the Court to permit 

divided argument and permit Judge Entz ten (10) minutes in 

which to address these additional arguments. 

APPELLANT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION 

FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT - Page 2   

 



  

Respectfully submitted, 

(2a Setetind] 
Robert H. Mow, Jr. (7 
David C. Godbey 
Bobby M. Rubarts 
Craig W. Budner 

  

of HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P. 

1717 Main Street 
Suite 2800 
Dallas, TX 75201 

(214) 939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS COUNTY 
DISTRICT JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 

Of Counsel: 

Sidney Powell 
Strasburger & Price 
901 Main Street 
Suite 4300 

Dallas, TX 75202 

(214) 651-4692 

APPELLANT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION 

FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT - Page 3 
  

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 
instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, on William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, 

Southwest Voter Registration & Education Project, 201 N. St. 
Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonio, Texas 78205; 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; 
Renea Hicks, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, 
Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-2548; J. Eugene Clements, 

Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 
77002-2730; Walter L. Irvin, 5785 South Hampton Road, Suite 
210, Lock Box 122, Dallas, TX 75232-2255; Susan Finkelstein, 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 201 N. St. Mary's #624, San 
Antonio, Texas 78205; and Seagal V. Wheatley, Oppenheimer, 
Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 711 Navarro, Sixth 
Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205 in 3 dance with the 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure thi 2S y of October, 
1991. 

   

  

APPELLANT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION 

FOR DIVIDED ORAL. ARGUMENT - Page 4