Respondent Judge Entz's Motion for Divided Oral Argument

    ® HUGHES & LUCE ® 
1717 MAIN STREET 

SUITE2800 

  

DALLAS, TEXAS 7520! 
1001 FANNIN (214) 939-5500 Il CONGRESS AVENUE 
SUITE 725 FAX (214) 939-6100 SUITE 900 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 TELEX 730836 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 
(713) 759-6858 : (512) 482-6800 

FAX (713) 759-1345 FAX (512) 482-6859 

Direct Dial Number 

(214) 939-5581 

  

March 13, 1991 

BY CERTIFIED MAIL 
  

  

Clerk, /Supreme Court of the United States 

Washington, D.C. 20543 

pel
 

® Houston Lawyers Association, et al.. and League of 
United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC"), et al. v. 
Attorney General of Texas and Judge F. Harold Entz, 
et al., Cause Nos. 90-813 and 90-974 

Dear Sir: 

Enclosed please find an original and eleven copies of the 
Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz's Motion for 
Divided Oral Argument for the above-referenced matter. 

Please return a file-marked copy to me in the enclosed 
self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. Please note that 
copies of the above documents are being sent by certified mail 
to the other parties. 

for Chon! 
David C. Godbey 

DCG/pai 

Enclosures 

52800010:271 

 



HUGHES & LUCE % 

Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court 

March 13, 1991 

Page 2 

(CERTIFIED MAIL RRR) 

William L. Garrett 
Rolando Rios 
Susan Finkelstein 
Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Edward B. Cloutman, III 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Renea Hicks 

Tom Maness 

David R. Richards 
J. Eugene Clements 
Mark Gross 

Joel H. Pullen 

Seagal V. Wheatley 
John L. Hill, Jr. 
Michael Ramsey 
R. James George 

Walter L. Irvin 
Orlando Garcia 
Robert B. McDuff 

The Hon. Solicitor General of the United States 

 



  

NOS. 90-813 and 90-974 

IN THE 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1990 

HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, et al., and 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., 

Petitioners, 

Y. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS and 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, et al., 

Respondents. 

RESPONDENT JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Respondent Judge F. Harold Entz ("Respondent Judge Entz") 

moves for leave to present divided oral argument in 

accordance with Rule 38.4 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. Respondent Judge Entz is a sitting 

state criminal district judge in Dallas County, Texas. He 

has been an active litigant in the courts below, having 

defended Dallas County during the trial of the case, having 

initially perfected the appeal of the case, and having 

successfully sought an emergency stay of the trial court's 

subsequently reversed ruling. While Judge Entz was 

successfully taking action in ‘the Fifth Circuit, in 

conjunction with the other intervenor-defendant Judge Wood, 

the Texas Attorney General's office, under the prior 

officeholder, agreed to settle the case in a manner that 

MOTION FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT -- PAGE 1 
  

 



  

would have destroyed the Texas judicial system. Thus, Judge 

Entz is not a latecomer to this case and has acted 

independently of the Texas Attorney General to advance 

materially the course of this action. 

2. Respondent Judge Entz has also maintained throughout 

this action legal positions that were and are materially 

different from those presented by the Texas Attorney 

General. In particular, Judge Entz has always advocated the 

"plain meaning of 'representative'" rationale used by the 

Fifth Circuit en banc below, which the Texas Attorney General 

has not endorsed. Additionally, Judge Entz has argued that 

the construction of Section 2 applied below should be adopted 

because contrary constructions would be unconstitutional,’ 

which again the Texas Attorney General does not argue. Judge 

Entz intends to present both of these positions to this Court 

and understands that the Texas Attorney General does not 

intend to make those arguments here, either. 

3. Respondent Judge Entz has not agreed that the Texas 

Attorney General may make the oral presentation on behalf of 

all Respondents. On the other hand, Judge Entz is not trying 

to prevent the Texas Attorney General from presenting his 

views. Accordingly, Judge Entz requests the Court to permit 

  

*/ In view of Judge Entz's position, 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) may 

be applicable. In response to notification from Judge Entz 

dated February 13, 1990, the Fifth Circuit certified to the 
Attorney General the fact that the constitutionality of 

Section 2 was drawn into question, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2403(a), by letter dated February 20, 1990. 

MOTION FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT -- PAGE 2 
  

 



  

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

which to address these additional arguments supporting the 

judgment below. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Df ll, 
*Robert H. Mow, 

David C. Godbe 

  

of HUGHES & LUCE 

1717 Main Street, Suite 2800 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ 

*Attorney of Record 

MOTION FOR DIVIDED ORAL ARGUMENT -- PAGE 3 
  

 



  

NOS. 90-813 and 90-974 

IN THE 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1990 

HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, et al., and 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., 

Petitioners, 

Ve. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS and 
JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, et al., 

Respondents. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I, DAVID C. GODBEY, hereby certify that I am a member of 

the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that I 

have caused the Motion for Divided Oral Argument to be served 

by depositing the same, first class postage prepaid, in the 

United States mail, this 13th day of March, 1991, addressed to: 

William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 
214-369-1952 

Attorneys for Petitioners LULAC, et al. 

Rolando Rios 

Southwest Voter Registration & Education Project 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

512-222-2102 

Attorneys for Petitioners LULAC, et al. 
  

Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 624 
San Antonio, TX 78205 
512-271-3807 

Attorneys for Petitioners LULAC, et al. 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 1 

 



Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 
212-219-1900 
Attorneys for Petitioners Houston Lawyers' Association 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

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

3301 Elm Street 

Dallas, TX 75226-1637 

214-939-9222 

Attorneys for Petitioners Jesse Oliver, et al. 
  

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

Dallas, TX 75203 
214-428-3793 

Attorneys for Petitioners Jesse Oliver, et al. 
  

Renea Hicks 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, TX 78711-2548 
Attorneys for Respondent Attorney General of Texas 
  

J. Eugene Clements 

Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 77002-2730 

713-226-0600 
Attorneys for Respondent Judge Sharolyn Wood 
  

Seagal V. Wheatley 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg 
Kellerher & Wheatley, Inc. 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor 
San Antonio, TX 78205 
512-224-2000 
Attorneys for Respondents Bexar County Judges 
  

Solicitor General 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 ud 

David €. Godbey 
Attorney for Respondent 
Judge F. Harold\Entz 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2