# League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 25, 1993 · 999 F.2d 831

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413436

## Case

- **Full name:** LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4434, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Jesse Oliver, Et Al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. CLEMENTS, Etc., Et Al., Defendants; Jim MATTOX, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants, v. Judge F. Harold ENTZ, Etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, Etc., and George S. Bayoud, Jr., Etc., Defendants-Appellants, and Tom Rickhoff, Susan D. Reed, John J. Specia, Jr., Sid L. Harle, Sharon MacRae and Michael P. Pedan, Bexar County, Texas State District Judges, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 25, 1993
- **Citations:** 999 F.2d 831; 1993 WL 319087
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wiener
- **Judges:** Politz, King, Johnson, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Demoss
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413436

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Baker means that in a suit challenging the constitutionality of a state statute, the attorney general does not possess exclusive authority to choose whether the state’s interests will be asserted on appeal and that another state official charged with the duty o…
- finding judges who had intervened as defendants had Article III standing as voters affected by the challenged judicial election scheme to pursue the case independently on appeal
- recognizing a State’s historic interest in having district judges remain accountable to all voters

## Opinion text

WIENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In so doing I join the dissent of Chief Judge Politz in the belief that we judge best when we judge least, particularly in controversial matters of high public interest to the several states. If forced to take a position on the merits of this, the second en banc consideration of the case, I would regrettably find it impossible to concur in the reasoning of Judge Higginbotham’s majority opinion or Judge Jones’ concurring opinion. For me those writings simply do not “hang together.” I would therefore reach the same conclusion as does Judge King in her dissent — and for most if not all of the same reasons.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413436. Public record. Not legal advice.