Appendix — White v. Regester

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

INDEX

VOLUME I

Page

Ren EUG 6 4s 4k 8 ke i

Trial Testimony (December 3-5,1973) 1

ec uey MN sg 5 6 tt ee 31

ON Sg. Se 35

a 50

Te: « 5 ¢ & 2 & © @ « 61

Meee GOeeeMB =. ts tw ew th ts 154

Bobby Webber ......... 161

ee ee 173

gS a 180

CE ee ee ee 237

i wE <5. 6 6 & 6 2 we 8 255

a ee ee ee 262

ee ee 283

een wre 6 6s 8 6 8 8 tt 310

Volmar Overton ........ 361

Tommie L. Wyatt ........ 383

Romer &. RIFWOR . . 6 ew tw we tl 387

Gonzalo Barrientos ....4.. 396

VOLUME II

mewee Mereres .-. 21 ss 1 tt 415

es . «a ek ek 8 438

Vincent Kemendo ........ 462

Paul Ragsdale ......... 482

Sarah Weddington ....... 493

Berewe. CPMOR 2. sc ww ttt 515

Dr. Charles Cotrell ...... 555

(i)

ini Se

Site. (lente ie awk ain ae

Aes.

Discussion concerning District 35

Discussion concerning District 3

R. B. McAlister .

Discussion concerning District 72

in Gemeee MOTO « ts oe & ws

Carios Truan . °

L. DeWitt Hale (Recalled) . —

PePGvGS GOSE 4 cs we te te te eee

Decision of Court ... ‘* * «

Deposition of Jovce Wendell Sifford

Dposition of Betty J. Fisher .

Deposition of R.C. Johnson ....

Deposition of George A. McAlmon

VOLUME IV

Deposition of Apoloneo Montemayor

Deposition of Dr. Hector P. Garcia .

Deposition of L. DeWitt Hale .

Deposition of Travis Peeler

Deposition of Robert L. Gilbert

Exhibit 1 annexed to Deposition

of Robert L. Gilbert .....

Deposition of Tom P. Moore, Jr.

Deposition of William B. Oliver

VOLUME V

Deposition of Cleveland Nisby

Deposition of Terry Doyle

Deposition of Reverend Rodney Howell

Exhibit 1 annexed to Deposition of

Reverend Rodney Howell

Exhibit 2 annexed to Deposition of

Reverend Rodney Howell

Petraes caine tare iain al lig

SELLS REDE III INCL PRE CE lg Rec sine an OME IS UNE

Exhibit 3 annexed to Deposition

Reverend Rodney Howell

Deposition of Jessie Rangel

Deposition of Froy Salinas

Exhibit 71 annexed to Deposition

Froy Salinas ee e &

Exhibit 3 annexed to Deposition

Froy Salinas . :

Deposition of Madison Raster

Exhibit 1 annexed to Deposition

of Madison Sowder .

Exhibit 2 annexed to Deposition

a, 2h: Para

Exhibit 1 annexed to Deposition

Or. Becter P. Garcia ... «

Exhibit 2 annexed to Deposition

Dr. Hector P. Garcia . .

Exhibit 3 annexed to Deposition

Dr. Hector P. Garcia .

Exhibit 4 annexed to Deposition

Dr. Hector P. Garcia... .

Exhibit 5 annexed to Deposition

Dr. Hector P. Garcia . .

Exhibit 6 annexed to Deposition

Dr. Hector P. Garcia .

Exhibit 7 annexed to benesttion

Dr. Hector P. Garcia .

VOLUME VI

Plaintiff Intervenor Gaskin,et al.,

Redistricting Plan for Tarrant

County .-.

(iii)

1882

1885

1915

2015

2016

2918

2067

2068

2071

2135

2136

2137

2141

2142

2143

2144

Plaintiff Intervenor Moreno, et

al., Redistricting Plan for

Lubbock County

Plaintiff Intervenors Wright &

Crawford Redistricting Plan

for Travis County.

Plaintiff Intervenors Wright, Re-

districting Plan for Galveston.

McLennan and Jefferson Counties

Republican Plaintiff and Plaintiff

Intervenor Moreno Redistricting

Plan for El Paso County.

Plaintiff Escalante Redistricting

Plan for Tarrant County

Plaintiff Intervenor Moreno Redis-

tricting Plan for E1 Paso

ER Se | care Se

Defendants Exhibit 44.

Defendants Exhibit 47

Defendants Exhibit 48

Derendants Exhibit 49

Defendants Exhibit 51

Plaintiff Intervenor Wright

Exhibit 29 .

Plaintiff Intervenor Might

Exhibit 30 a

Plaintiff Intervenor Wright

Exhibit 31

Plaintiff Intervenor Wright

Exhibit 32

(iv)

2179

2186

2200

2230

2238

2256

2268

2286

2290

2294

2295

2301

2309

2313

2318

Plaintiff Intervenor Moreno

Exhibit 24

Plaintiff Intervenor Moreno

Exhibit 25. te

Plaintiff Intervenor Moreno

Exhibit 31

Plaintiff

3-A through 3-C.

Plaintiff

Escalante

3-D through 3-F

Plaintiff

Escalante

3-G through 3-I

Plaintiff

Escalante

6-A through 6-C

Plaintiff

Flaintiff

Plaintiff

Piaintiff

Plaintiff

Escalante

Exhibit

Exhibits

—S et eee —s —

! .

moO Ww YS

Exhibits

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit

Exhibit 7

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 8-

Exhibit 8

Exhibit 9

Exhibit 1

(v)

2335

2372

2377

2378

2379

2380

2381

2382

2383

2384

2385

2386

2397

2406

2407

2408

2410

2412

2413

2414

2418

2422

2424

gta res 4 aan

Plaintiff

Escalante

Escaiante

Escalante

through 18-E

Plaintiff

Escalante

through 18-I

Plaintiff

1(a)'

Plaintiff

3(a)'

Plaintiff

7(a)'

Plaintiff

Escalante

Exhibit

Exhibits 18-A

Exhibit 18-F

10-

11-A

11-

12-A

12-

13-A .

13-B

14-A .

14-

14-C

15-A

15-

Exhibit 18-G

Exhibit

through 1(g)'.

Escalante

Exhibit

through 3(i)'.

Escalante

Exhibit

through 7(c)'. ;

Escalante Exhibit 8,

(vi)

2432

2436

2440

2442

2447

2449

2459

2462

2469

2473

2477

2486

2487

2545

2557

2558

2560

2561

2562

2563

2571

2574

2584

2585

2587

Plaintiff Escalante Exhibit 1F--Proposed

Single District Map of District 32

(Tarrant County): Large easel-size

map rot reproducible in a printed

appendix. Original map contained in

the original record in the clerk's of-

fice. (For similar map, see Plaintiff

Escalante Deposition IF).

Plaintiff Escalante Exhibit 2A--Tarrant

County Census Tract Information: Bulky

exhibit not reproduced in printed ap-

pendix because all other relevant data

cited therefrom is contained in other

exhibits.

Plaintiff Escalante Exhibit 2B--Tarvant

County Block Information: Bulky exhi-

bit not reproduced in printed appendix

because all other relevant data cited

therefrom is contained in other exhi-

bits.

(vii)

NOTATION

The following items appear in an appen-

dix to the Jurisdictional Statement at the

paged noted and are not reprinted in this

appendix:

Opinions of the lower court. .. 1A

Majority opinion. ....... 1A

Order of the Court ..... . -69A

Wood, District Judge,

dissenting +--+ ++ + + + 72A

(viii)

DOCKET ENTRIES

GRAVES, ET AL.

V. A-71-CA-142

BARNES, ET AL.

(Full title omitted in printing, docket

entries prior to June 22, 1973 omitted)

6-25-73 92- Slip Opinion Supreme Court U.S.

(See (A-71-CA-143)

6-18-73 92- MOTION TO INTERVENE (SEE CIVIL

A-73-CA-115 for list of Intervenors)

filed. with copy of Complaint in Inter-

vention attached. Motion & Order to

Judge Justice for signature.

6-18-73 93- Authorities in Support of Motion

to Intervene, filed.

6-25-73 94- Slip Opinion Supreme Court U.S.

filed (See A-71-CA-143)

8-7-73 95- Motion to Intervene in instant case

and A-71-143, 144, & 145 filed (Dave

Richards Attorney)

8-17-73 96- Motion to Intervene in instant case

and A-71-143, 144 & 145, filed by James

Gaskin, Charles Puente, Bobby G. Webber,

Dorothy Perez & Richard Quevedo and

Barbara Nelson (see A-73-CA-146-Atty,

Norman M. Bonner, Jr.) Copy to Judges

w/Compt.

8-17-73

See p. 93

9-4-73

9-5-73

8-31-73

9-10-73

97- Authorities in Support of Motion

to Intervene, filed. Copy to Judges.

98- Order entered by Managing Judge

William Wayne Justice to all attorneys

-order-briefs re jurisdiction & issues

in this case, filed. Copy to all at-

torneys.

98a- Brief of Defts. on Quest. of Juris

diction & Power of This Court & Remain-

ing issues, filed. A-71-CA-142, 143,

144, 145.

99- Brief of Plaintiffs, George Wille-

ford, et al, Regarding the Appropriate-

ness of Further Proceedings, filed.

(A-71-CA-142, 143, 144, 145) Copy to

3 Judges

100- Motion to Intervene filed by Frank

lin R. Sears, Rev. C.A. Holliday, Alan

McNeill, Walter S. Smith, Jr., Harrell

Z. Browning, Vincent Kemendo, William

C. Davidson, Jr., Joe Summers, Jr., anc

C.B. Garcia. Copy to 3 judges. (A-71-

CA-142, 143, 144 & 145) Also copy to

Judge Roberts since they are motioning

to Intervene in A-73-CA-115)

101- Memorandum as to Further Proceed-

ings on continued jurisdiction, filed

by Diana Regester (A-71-CA-143)

101- Memorandum as to Further Proceed-

ings on continued jurisdiction, filed

by Diana Regester (A-71-CA-143)

9-10-73

9-28-73

(filed

10-3-73)

10-4-73

102- Amicus Curiae Brief of Tarrant

County Intervenors on Question of Con-

tinuing Jurisdiction filed (Ind. Suit

A-73-CA-115), filed. Copy to Judges

by atty.

103- Order entered Recusing Judge

Roberts and consolidating all cases of

Action A-71-CA-142, 143, 144 & 145;

A-73-CA-115, 146 and 155, filed. Copy

to all attorneys in all cases (for hear-

ing only.)

104- Order entered by Managing Judge

Wayne Justice setting trial date of

Dec. 3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m., at Austin.

Order also grants all petitions for in-

tervention pending before the panel.

(Original Order filed herein)

105- Compalint in Intervention filed by

Plaintiffs in A-73-CA-115. Copy tc

Judges with copy of Motion & Brief in

Support (with exhibits attached)

106- Compalint in Intervention filed by

Plaintiffs in A-73-CA-146). Copy to

Judges.

Motion of party Plaintiffs Charles Wright

(Travis Co.), et al, filed by Dave

Richards, Attorney, granted by Order of

Managing Judge Justice, filed Oct. 4,

1973 (No separate Complaint was filed

by these Intervenors)

iii

bit ieee Fie

10-18-73

10-19-73

11-6-73

11-13-73

11-15-73

11-21-73

11-23-73

107- Motion to Intervent filed by Rosa

Maria Gonzalez, Moreno, et al (in A-71-

CA-142, 143, 144 & 145 only) Copy to

3 judges with proposed Order to Manag-

ing Judge Wayne Justice (Copy of Comp-

laint in intervention also forwarded

and original in file)

108- Motion to Intervene filed by Collis

E. Cannon and Cleveland Nisby (in all

Seven cases)(Dave Richards Attorney)

Copies to Judges.

109- Interrogs to Defts. filed by Pitff-

Intervenors Charles Wright, et al.

Copy to Judges.

110- Order setting Nov. 26 for briefs

to be filed. Copy to attorneys &

Judges

11l- Interrogatories to Defendants filed

by Pitff Dr; Willeford & Pitff Intervr.

Franklin R. Sears.

112- Deposition of Robert i. Gilbert

(taken by Plaintff), filed. (in this

case file)

113- Answers and Objections to Interro-

gatories filed by Defts. Mark White &

Dolph Briscoe in response to interrogs

propounded by Pltff-Intervenors Charles

Wright, et al, filed. (filed in this

A-71-CA-142)

114- Motion for Leave to File A Brief,

iv.

11-26-73

11-27-73

*11-23-73

11-29-73

11-30-73

a , ae

As Amicus Curiae filed by Texas Women's

Political Caucus, filed. (in A-71-CA-

142, (includes all cases)(and Brief in

support)

115- Order by Managing Judge Justice

for deposit of $4,000 to expedite pre-

paration of transcript ($2,000 each by

Deft. & Pitff-Intervenors) and that each

party supply list of witnesses for hear-

ing for Dec. 3 by NOV 3, 1973 at 9:00

A.M. Deposit in Clerk's office by

Dec. 3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m., filed. Copy

to Judges and all parties’ attorneys.

116- Depositions of Joyce Wendell Sif-

ford, Fischer and Johnson filed (with

Exhibits as Doc. #'s 22, 23, and 24 in

A-73-CA-115)

117- Motion for Leave to File an Amend-

ment to Complaint (to litigate for law-

ful Claim for attorney's fees) with pro-

posed Order and Proposed Amended Comp-

laint attached by Plaintiff-Intervenors

(in A-73-CA-115, Doc't #25)

118- Trial Brief for Pltiffs-Intervenors

Tarrant County, Dist. 32, filed. (Doc.

#26 in A-73-CA-115)

119- Depositions of William B. Oliver,

III and Oevelance Nisby, filed (in all

cases)

120- Oral Deposition of L. DeWitt Hale

filed (in all cases)

11-30-73

12-3-73

és

121- Oral Deposition of Terry Doyle,

filed (in all cases)

122- Oral Deposition ur Felix McDonald

filed (in all cases)

123- Oral Deposition of Madison Sowder

filed (in all cases)

124- Deft. Attorney General, State of

Texas, Witness list for hearing set for

Dec. 3, 1973, filed, in accordance with *

order of Nov. 26.

125- Deposit of $2,000.00 by State of

Texas Voucher for DEFTS., FILED.

126- Witness List of Plaintiff Inter-

venors Wright, et al, Moreno, et al and

Sears, et al, filed.

'127- Briefs of Regester, Wilieford,

Bernal, Chapman and Pitff Intervenors

Moreno, et al, Sears, et al and Wright

et al, filed.

128- Deposition of Jessie Rangel, filed.

129- Oral Deposition of Froy Salinas,

filed with exhibit.

130- Deposition of Rev. Rodney Howell,

filed with exhibit.

131- Western Union Money Order Message

from Mexican American Legal Defense Fund

in amount of $700.00 as Pltiff-Intervenor

Wright, Moreno, et al deposit (one-third

of $2,000 per Order of Nov. 26, 1973.

Peeves oye coe *

12-3-73

3 Judge

Hon. Woods,

Justice,

& Thorn-

berg.

132- Trial Brief for Plaintiff-Inter-

venors Gaskin, et al, filed.

133- Motion to Take Judicial Notice of

Testimony Given at a Former Trial, filed

by Pitiffs-Escalante, et al (A-73-CA-

155, their orig. complt)

134- Stipulation as to Plaintiffs’

Escalante, et al, Exhibits la and 0,

filed.

135- Minutes of CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, FILED.

Motion to File an Amicus Curie Brief by

Tex. Women's Political Caucus, Granted.

Opening Statements made by Don Gladden

and Norman Bonner for Escalante (Terrant

Co.) Larry York for Atty General reserved

his statements for later time. Exhibits

Intrdced-all received and adaitted except

for 16, 17 and 21 for which objections

were made (later admitted by Court)

Witnesses sworn and testimony on behalf

cf Excalante begun. Depositions of

Johnson, Difford and Betty Fischer ad-.

mitted. Written objections to be pre-

sented to Court as to certain Deposi-

tions by Dec. 4th. - Escalante rests.

Witnesses sworn and testimony on behalf

of Gaskin Begun. Objections of Mr.

Richard as to certain legislative bills-

Overruled-Tarrant Co. rests. Testimony

on behalf of Intervenor, Chas, Wright

begun-Exh. 1-28 admitted-opening State-

vii

12-3-73

12-4-73

12-5-73

ments made by Mr. Richards (Jefferson

Co., et al). Court adjourned until

Dec. 4, 9:00 a.m.

136- Tarrant Co. Witnesses Sworn list,

filed.

137- EXHIBITS LIST, FILED-Pitinff-

Intervenor GASKIN.

138- EXHIBIT LIST: Pltff-Intervenors-

Wright, et al-filed.

139- Complaint in Intervention filed by

Rosa Maria Gonzalez Moreno, et al.

(attorney: Mexican Amer. Leg. Def.

Fund, George J. Korbel, attorney)

140- Escalante EXHIBIT LIST, FILED.

141- Moreno, INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST,

FILED.

142- MINUTES OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, FILED.

Testimony on behalf of Intervenors Moreno

et al and Wright resumed. Exhibits for

Republican-Plaintiffs #10-#15 admitted.

Court adjourned until Wednesday Morning

at 9:00 a.m. (3-Judge) (all Counties ex-

cept Tarrant)

143- Wright, Moreno Plitff-Intervenors

WITNESS SWORN LIST filed.

144- Republican Plaintiff's Exhibits

List, filed. (Copy with Ex's 10-15 in

Ex. Room. )

145- Minutes of CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FILED.

Testimony on behalf of Intervenors,

viii

12-5-73

12-21-73

12-24-73

12-27-73

Wright, Moreno, et al resumed. Addi-

tional Exhibits for Wright admitted

#29-32 and others) All Counsel agreed

to waive final arguments and to file

extensive briefs with Court. Plaintiffs

Intervenors rest. Testimony on behalf

of Defts. begun. Attorney General's

(defts) Exhbs #la-#41 admitted (and

others) Briefs to be submitted by DEC

21st (1 copy for each Judge and one for

Clerk of Court's office file.

Minutes of civil proceedings Dec. 5 con-

tinued ...... Case taken under Advisement

by 3 Judges (adjourned)

146- Intervenor Chapman (PItff) Exhibits

list filed. (copy with Exh. #1 only

filed) in exhibit room. )

147- Defendants' Exhibits List filed

(Attorney General's office, State of

Texas) Copy with exhibits in exhibit

room)

148- Order entered extending time to

submit briefs to Dec. 28th no later than

5:00 filed-all attorneys notified by

Judge Justice’ office by phone.

149- Motion to Substitute Party (Jack

Warren, Chrmn Exec. Rep. Party for

George Willeford, former chrmn), filed.

150- Post Submission Brief on Behalf of

Plaintiff Warren and Republican Inter-

venors filed (R. James George, Jr.,

Attorney).

SEO EM

12-27-73

12-28-73

1-2-74

*12-24-73

1-7-74

151- Post Trial Brief for Plaintiffs

Charles Wright, et al and Wanda Chapman

et al, filed (David Richards, Attorney)

152- Post Trial Brief for Plaintiff-

Intervenors Gaskin, et al, filed.

(Norman M. Bonner, Jr. attorney)

153- Trial Brief for Plaintiffs Escalante,

et al (Tarrant County Dist. 32)(Don

Gladden, attorney)

154- Post Submission Biref of Defts

White and Briscoe, filed. (Elizabeth

Levatino, Spec. Asst. Attorney Gen.,

attorney. )

155- First Amended Complaint in Inter-

vention filed by Moreno, Pitff. (Kor-

bell, atty for Maldef)(copy to Judges

by attorneys)

156- Plaintiff's Moreno, et al Post-

Trial Brief, filed. (Korbel, attorney)

-Out of Order Notation: Statement re-

ceived from Dorothy Daugherty, 2928

Pollard, Tyler, Texas 75701 for hearings

held Dec. 3-5, 1973. $2.133.00 due.

157- Letter signed by three Judge stating

Pitfs and Intervenors file proposed re-

districting plans for Court's considera-

tion for each district represented by

said counsel prior to 1-12074 & counsel

for deft should file its plan prior to

1-18-74 filed.

1-8-74

1-11-74

158- Orde: signed by three judge filing

deadline for office of State represen-

tatives (providing that an application

to have one's name placed on ballot as

a candidate for nomination by a politi-

cal party shall be filled not later than

6:00 P.M. Feb. 18, 1974 & that (provid-

ing that the county chairman shall file

with county clerk of his county a list

of all candidates within 10 days which

will pe Feb. 28, 1974 filed copies

mailed to all attys all judges & Party

chairmans.

159- Legislative Redistricting Plan and

Supporting Brief of P1ltf-Intervenors

Gaskin, et al. (Legislative District 32)

filed.

160- Proposed Plan of Apportionment of

the Lubbock County Multi-Member District

into Single Member Districts filed.

161- Proposed legislative district plan

for Travis County (with accompanying de-

scriptive data filed

162- Proposed legislative district plans

for counties, Galveston, McLennan &

Jefferson with accompanying descriptive

data attached filed.

163- Proposed Plan of Apportionment of

the Nueces County Multi-Member District

into Single Member Districts filed.

1-14-74

1-16-74

1-21-74

164- Letter dated Jan. 11, 1974 to all

parties from managing Judge William

Wayne Justice re error in Exhibit #1

submitted by Attorney Richards on behalf

of plaintiffs, Wright, et al. Attorney

Richards to respond by 5:00 p.m., Wed.

Jan. 16, 1974; stips or objections to

response to be filed by 5:00, Jan. 21,

1974.

165- Proposed Redistricting Plans for

Tarrant, Travis, McClennan, Lubbock,

Nueces, Jefferson & El Paso Counties

(by Republican Pitffs)(E1 Paso Co. also

submitted on behalf of PItff Moreno),

filed (R. James George, Atty).

(Galveston County also included but not

mentioned in transmittal letter)

166- Proposed plan lines of Plaintiffs-

Intervenors, Escalante, et al (Tarrant

County), filed (attorney Don Gladden)

167- Corrected Exhibit 1 filed by Attor-

ney David Richards (Wright Pltff-Inter-

venors) in keeping with Court's letter

of 1-14-74.

166- Addendum to porposed plan filed by

Escalante, et al (A-73-CA-115) Don

Gladden, attorney.

168- Letter dated Jan. 18, 1974 from

Attorney R. James George, Jr. (Reps.

Pitffs) re submitted

xii

1-23-74

1-24-74

169- Proposed Plans submitted through

Attorney General, State of Texas re-

lating to Tarrant and Nueces Counties

filed

170- Letter from Managing Judge Justice

to Counsel (dated Jan. 18, 1974) ad-

vising proposed single-member plans

will be discussed at hearing set for

9:00 A.M., Jan. 28, 1974. Opinion and

order of Court will be forthcoming

shortly after the hearing. (Also stat-

ing Dists. #7, 32, 35, 37, 48, 72 & 75

are unconstitutional)

171- ALL NON-PARTY PLANS submitted in

compliance with Omnibus Order entered

Oct. 4, 1973, filed. 11 plans submitted

as follows:

a. District #80, submitted by Joe Pen-

tony-Representative-9 Counties

b. District #32, submitted by Doyle

Willis, Representative-Tarrant.

c. Nueces County, submitted by L.

DeWitt Hale

d. Tarrant County, submitted by Citi-

zens for Reform, Harold D. Hammet, Chrmn.

e. McClennan County submitted by Lyndon

Olson, Jr. & Lane Denton, Reps.

f. Travis County submitted by Democrat

Executive Committee

g. El Paso County submitted by Ronald

D. Coleman, St. Rep.

1-28-74

h. Tarrant & Parker Counties, Sub‘d

by-Citizens, Sherman, Hilliard & Spur-

lock, II

I. Lubbock Hale & Swisher Counties-

Sub'd by- Delwin Jones, Chrmn, House

Redistg Comm. & St. Rep. McAlister,

Member 63rd Session.

J. Jefferson County-Dist. #7-Submitted

by-Committee Chrmn, Nelson Brocato and

Webber.

k. Lubbock County-submitted by St. Reps.

(Dist 75) McAlister and Tarbox.

1. Lubbock County, Submitted by James

E. “Pete” Laney, representv.

m. Travis County Map Plan, submitted

by HUB; Austin City Plan, submitted by

HUB.

172- Revised plan for Rep. Pitffs for

El Paso County, filed (one census tract

only)

173- Proposed Single-Member Dist. Plan

for E1 Paso County, Tx, submitted by

Attorney Korbel, filed.

174- Letter dated Jan. 23, Judge Justice

regarding unsealing non-party plans.

175- MINUTES OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FILED.

Hearing on Proposed plans for single-

member districts for #7, 32, 35, 37, 48

72 and 45. Testimony begun on Tarrant

Co. Pitffs Wright & Moreno adopt Pitff

xiv

Escalante plan for Tarrant Co. Gladden

Plan submitted. Pltff Gaskin Plan sub-

mitted. Republican Plan submitted,

Deft, State of Texas Plan Z submitted.

Testimony re Tarrant Co. concluded.

Arguments presentd. Atty. Gladden ar-

gues for Escalante Plan; Atty. Bonner

argues for Gaskin Plan; Atty George ar-

gues for Republican Plan. Moreno, et al

announce support of Gaskin Plan. Ass'‘t

Attorney General York arques for Plan Z.

Testimony on Jefferson County Begins:

Pitffs Wright testimony presented and ,

concluded. Republican Testimony be-

gan & Concluded. State of Texas Testi-

mony began & concluded. All parties

waive argument on Jefferson Co. Mc-

Lennan County: All Pitffs announce

agreement upon a plan. Tom Moore, Rep.

from McLennan Co. submits plan of Mc-

Lennan Co. Commissioners. (Exh. #1)

State had not adopted Plan & presented

no testimony. Repub. presented no tes-

timony on their plan. Travis County:

All parties Pitff announce agreement

on Plan. No testimony presented on

Republican Plan. State of Texas sub-

mits copy of Comm'rs Co. Precincts.

Civil Proceedings of hearing held Jan.

28, continued (from previous page)

Lubbock County: Alli PIltff Parties An-

nounce no testimony to present.

—_

Pitffs Wright & Moreno join in adoption

of a plan Republic'n Plan - no testimony

presented; State of Texas testimony be-

gun. Moreno (Pitff) argues for Pitff

parties' plan. £1 Paso County: All

Pitff parties announce adoption of

Coleman Plan (submitted, non-party) Re-

publican-Moreno Plan is withdrawn. No

Plan submitted by State of Texas for

El Paso County. Nueces County: All

pitff parties announce adoption of Mexi-

can American Legal Defense Educational

Fund Plan (Korbel. Attorney) State of

Texas announces adoption of M.A.L.D.E.F.

and Hale Plan (submitted by L. DeWitt

Hale, non-party). Pltff's present re-

buttal testimony for MALDEF Plan. Mr.

Korbel argues in favor of MALDEF Plan.

Republican Plan had no testimony to

present. All Pitffs Rest. State of

Texas Rests. Dave Richards, attorney for

Wright-Intervenors stipulates 225 hours

of time put into case since Order on

Remand @$40.00/hour. COURT ANNOUNCES

MAJORITY DECISION REACHED AS FOLLOWS:

Tarrant County: Pltff-Intervenors Es-

calante plan adopted. Jefferson County:

Wright-Pitff Intervenors Plan adopted.

McLennan County: Wright-Intervenors Plan

adopted. Travis County: Chapman-Wright

Pitff Intervenors Plan adopted. Lubbock

County: MALDEF Plan adopted. €£1 Paso

xvi

1-28-74

1-10-74

County: MALDEF and Coleman Plan adopted.

Nueces County: MALDEF Plan. Judge John

H. Wood Dissents and will file Dissent

Memorandum Opinion by Noon Firday,

February 1, 1974. Majority Opinion

filed Jan. 28 (hearing date). Ordered

that filing deadline with County Clerk

be restored to Feb. 4 '74.

176- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (MA-

JORITY) FILED. Copy to Judges and

Attorneys (Final Judgment) (Judges

Justice & Goldberg)

177- Order Pursuant to Opinion (Majority)

filed. Copy to Judges and Attorneys.

178- Order rescinding Order of Jan. 8,

1974 (which extended filing deadline for

candidates for House of Reps. of State

of Texas to Feb. 28) and restoring Feb.

4, 1974, deadline. Copy to attorneys,

Judges, affected Bounty Clerks, Party

Chairman LaRaza Unida and Democrat &

Republican parties.

*179- Order entered signed by three judges

authorizing payment of $2,133.00 to

Court Reporter for hearing transcripts

(Hearing of Dec. 3-5, 1973)

180- Witness list, filed.

181- Deft, State of Texas Exhibit list

filed.

xvii

1-28-74

1-30-74

2-5-74

2-7-74

2-15-74

2-21-74

182- Wright Intervenor-PItff Exh.

List filed.

183- McLennan County Commr's Exhibit

#1 filed (Plan) and Escalante #26-27.

184- Notice of Appeal, to Supreme Court

of U.S. from Memorandum Opinion and

Order entered Jan. 28, 1974, filed.

Copy to 3 Judges, Clerk, U.S. Supreme

Court.

185- MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDORDER (DIS-

SENTING) FILED. (Judge John H. Wood)

Copys mld.

186- TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HEARD

DECEMBER 3-5, 1974, VOL. I, II, & III,

filed. (Original and One copy filed)

CLOSED

187- Certified copy of Supreme Court

Order (Justice Powell) staying execu-

tion and enforcement of District Court

Judgement Order dated Jan. 28, 1974,

pending further Order of Supreme Court

filed. Copy to attorneys.

188- Letter from Clerk, Supreme Court

advising, "The motions to vacate the «

stay heretofore granted by Mr. Justice

Powell are denied. Mr. Justice Douglas

dissents, filed.

189- Letter from Ass't Atty. Gen. ad-

vising Clerk unnecessary to transmit

xviii

na nals “=

4-23-74

7-5-74

OSA RRS. So RTC eI, “OREN etre

Case file to Supreme Court unless re-

quested by Clerk of that Court filed

190- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS, ORAL HEAR-

ING ON PRESENTATION OF PLANS HEAR AT

AUSTIN, JANUARY 28, 1974, filed.

191- MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

filed by Attorney for Intervenors

Charles Wright, et al. Copy to Judges.

REGESTER, ET AL.

A-71-AC-143

WHITE, ET AL.

(Full title omitted in printing; docket

entries prior to June 22, 1973 omitted)

6-22-74

8-7-73

9-17-73

126- Transmittal letter and slip opin-

ion from Supreme Court filed 25 days

until the Judgement or mandate will is-

sve, fild.

127- Judgment from United States Supreme

Court (Certified copy) fil'd. Affirmed

in part and reversed in part; remanded

to the U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist.

of Texas for further proceedings in con-

formity with the opinion of Supreme

Court. Copy to 3 judges.

128- Brief Regarding Further Issues to

be Determined by the Court Submitted by

Dallas Republican Intervenors (Samuel

Kail, Et al), filed. Copy to Judges.

(3) (Dallas Republicans were Intervenors

in A-71-CA-143 and 144)

reve mae

10-4-73 129- Order entered by Managing Judge

Wayne Justice setting trial date of DEC.

3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m. at Austin. Order

also grants all petitions for interven-

tion pending before the panel.

10-18-73 130- Motion to Intervene in A-71-CA-142,

143, 144 & 145 only by Rosa Maria Gon-

zalez, Moreno, et al (one copy only

filed in A-71-CA-142 Instr. #107)

(Legal Defense Fund)

10-19-73 131- Motion to Intervene filed by

Collis E. Cannon & Cleveland Nisby (all

7 cases) Dave Richards, attorney-filed

in No. A-71-CA-142

11-6-73 132- Interrogs to Defts. fild by Pitff-

Intervenors Charles Wright, et al (filed

in A-71-CA-142)

11-13-73 133- Order setting Nov. 26 for briefs

to be filed. Copy to attorneys & Judges

(filed in A-71-CA-142)

11-13-73 134- Interrogs to Defts filed by Pitff

Dr. Willeford & PItff Intervr. Franklin

R. Sears (filed in A-71-CA-142)

11-21-73 135- Motion to dismiss suit against Roy

Orr, Chrmn of St. Democratic Exec. Comn-

as improper party; if not dismissed, this

Committee adopts all pleadings & briefs.

of Secy of State, State of Texas. Filed

in A-71-CA-143 and A-71-CA-144) Placed

in this file)

1-7-74

1-8-74

1-11-74

136- Letter signed by three Judge stat-

ing Pitfs & Intervenors proposed redis-

tricting plans due 1-12-74 & Deft 1-18-

74 (see paper A-71-CA-142)

137- Order signed by three Judge grant-

ing deadline for all candidates for rep-

resentative to 6:00 P.M. 2-18-74 and

county chairman to 2-28-74 to get list

county clerk (see paper A-71-CA-142)

138- Legislative Redistricting Plan and

Supporting Brief of Plitf.-Intervenors

Gaskin, et al. (Legislative District 32)

filed (see paper in A-71-CA-142)

139- Proposed plans of apportionment for

Nueces & Lubbock filed (see A-71-CA-142)

140- Proposed plans of apportionment for

Galveston, McLennan & Jefferson filed

(see A-71-CA-142)

141- Proposed legislative district plan

Travis County filed (see A-71-CA-142)

(See docket sheet A-71-CA-142 for all docket en-

tries during rehearing. )

1-28-74

2-5-74

Majority Memorandum Opinion and Order

(Judges Justice and Goldberg) filed.*

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO MEMO,

OPINION, FILED.

CLOSED

*Minority opinion (Judge John H. Wood,

dissenting) filed in A-71-CA-142 only)

xxi

6-7-74

142- Supreme Court U.S. Order that the

Court has PROBABLE JURISDICTION A-71-

CA-143, 146 & A-73-CA-115 filed.

GASKIN, ET AL.

WHITE, ET AL.

A-73-CA-146

(Full title omitted in printing)

8-17-73

8-20-73

8-17-73

8-23-73

9-10-73

9-12-73

1- Complaint filed.

2- Motion to Consolidate (with A-71-

CA-142, 143, 144 & 145 ), filed.

Summons issued. Summons, 285, Complaint

and Motion to Consolidate to Marshal

for service. (and Authorities in Sup-

port of Motion)

3- Authorities in Support of Motion to

Consolidate, filed.

4- Summons re/ex-Secy of State-8/20/73-

Atkinson, DUSM $3.00

5- Summons re/ex-Gov'r of Texas-8/20/73-

Atkinson, DUSM $3.00

6- Amended Motion to Consolidate, filed

(with A-71-CA-142, 143, 144 & 145).

7- Motion for Extension of Time to File

an Answer filed by Defts.

8- Order extending to 10 days after

pitffs file Ist amended compt. copy to

attorneys.

9-27-73

9-28-73

10-4-73

10-19-73

10-25-73

11-6-73

11-13-73

11-15-73

Copy of Motion to Consolidate, Com-

plaint and Amended Motion to Consoli-

date to Judges Goldberg, Justice and

Wood, Jr.

9- Order CONSOLIDATING with A-71-CA-115

and 155 & A-71-CA-142, 143, 144 & 145.

(John R. Brown, Chief Judge, 5th Cir-

cuit). Instruments docketed from this

date on A-73-CA-115) Letters re this or-

der are in this file. (for hearing only)

10- Order entered by Managing Judge Wayne

Justice setting consolidated trial date

of Dec. 3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m. at Austin.

Order also grants all petitions for in-'

' tervention pending before the panel.

11- Motion to Intervene filed by Collis

E. Cannon & Cleveland Nisby. (In all 7

cases) Dave Richards Attorney-filed in

A-71-CA-142 (#108)

12- Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed.

Copy to Judges.

13- Deft's Original Answer to Amended

Complaint, filed. Copy to Judges.

14. Interrogs to Defts. filed by Pltff-

Intervenors Charles Wright (filed in A-

71-CA-142)

15- Order setting Nov. 26 for briefs to

be filed. Copy to attorneys & Judges

(filed in A-71-CA-142)

16- Interrogs to Defts. filed by Pitff.

xxiii

1-7-74

1-8-74

1-11-74

1-28-74

1-30-74

Dr. Willeford & PItff Intervr.Franklin

R. Sears. (filed in A-71-CA-142)

17- Letter signed by three Judge Pitfs

& Intervenors have 1-12-74 & deft to

1-18-74 (see paper A-71-CA-142)

18- Order by three Judge filing deadline

for representatives 6:00 P.M. 2-18-74

and county chairman 2-28-74 to get list

County Clerk (see paper A-71-CA-142)

19- Legislative Redistricting Plan &

Supporting Brief of Pltf-Intervenors

Gaskin, et al. (Legislative District 32)

filed. See paper A-71-CA-142

20- Proposed Plans Lubbock & Nueces (see

A-71-CA-142)

21- Proposed Plans Travis Co (see A-71-

CA-142)

22- Proposed plans Galveston, McLennan

& Jefferson (see A-71-CA-142)

SEE DOCKET SHEET FOR A-71-CA-142 for al]

documents regarding rehearing held

January 28, 1974)

Majority Memorandum Opinion and Order

(Judge John H. Wood, filed in A-71-CA-

142, only)

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO MEMO.

OPINION FILED.

NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED. Copy to Judges

& Supreme Court Clerk.

XXiVv

2-5-74

6-7-74

CLOSED JS-6-CARD Made.

23- Order Supreme Court U.S. has

PROBABLE JURISDICTION filed

(A-71-CA-143, A-73-CA-146 & A-73-CA-115)

CHAPMAN, ET AL.

A-73-CA-155

WHITE, ET AL.

(Full title omitted in printing)

8-28-73

9-5-73

9-17-73

9-21-73

9-23-73

9-28-73

l- Original Complaint filed.

Summons issued. To Marshal with 285

and Complaint (2)

2- Summons ret/ex-Sec'y of State served

8-28-73-Atkison DUSM $3.00

3- Summons ret/ex-Gov. Drisco served

8-28-74-Atkison DUSM $3.00

4- Defs' Original Answer to Complaint,

filed.

5- Order entered by Chief Judge John R.

Brown, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Con-

solidated this case with A-73-CA-115.

Escalante, et al v. White, et al. Copy

to attorneys. Copy in A-73-CA-115)

6- Deft's First Amended Answer, filed

7- Order of Chief Judge, 5th Circuit,

Consolidating this case with A-73-CA-

115, 155 and A-71-CA-142, 143, 144, 145,

filed. Copy to all party attorneys (for

rehearing only)

XXV

————

10-4-73 8- Order entered by Managing Judge

Wayne Justice setting trial date of Dec

3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m. at Austin. Order

also grants all petitions for interven-

tion pending before the panel.

10-19-73 9- Motion to Intervene filed by Collis

E. Cannon and Cleveland Nisby-in all 7

cases) Dave Richards attorney-filed in

A-71-CA-142 #108).

11-6-73 10- Interrogs to Defts. filed by Pitff-

Intervenors Charles Wright et al (filed

in A-71-CA-142)

11-13-73 11- Order setting Nov. 26 for briefs to

be file.. Copy to attorneys & Judges

(fld in A-71-CA-142)

11-15-73 12- Interrogs to Defts filed by Pitff

Dr. Willeford & PItff Intervr. Franklin

R. Sears. (filed in A-71-CA-142)

1-7-74 13- Letter signed by three Judge Pitfs

& Intervenors have 1-12-74 & deft 1-18-

74 to get any proposed redistricting plans

(see paper A-71-CA-142)

1-8-74 14- Order by three Judge filing deadline

for representatives 6:00 P.M. 2-18-74 &

county chairman 2-28-74 to get list to

County Clerk (see paper A-71-CA-142)

1-11-74 15- Legislative Redistricting Plan and

Supporting Brief of Plitf-Intervenors

Gaskin, et al. (Legislative District 32)

filed. See paper A-71-CA-142

Mav i

1-11-74

1-28-74

1-30-74

2-5-74

*Dissenting Opinion (Judge John H. Wood) filed in

A-71-CA-142)

ESCALANTE, ET AL.

WHITE, ET AL.

6-18-73

16- Proposed pian Lubbock and

Nueces (see A-71-CA-142)

17- Proposed plan Travis (see A-71-CA-

142)

18- Proposed Plans Galveston, McLennan,

& Jefferson (see A-71-CA-142)

MAJORITY MEMORANDUM OPINION ANC ORDER

(Judges Goldberg and Justice, filed.*

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Pursuant to Opinion,

filed. |

Notice of Appeal, filed-3 Judges, copies

& Supreme Court Clerk.

CLOSED JS-6 CARD

A-73-CA-115

(Full title omitted in printing)

1l- Original Complaint filed.

2- Motion to Consolidate (With A-71-CA-

142, A-71-CA-143 & A-71-CA-144 & A-71-

CA-145 under Rule 42(2), filed.

Summons, 285, Complaint & Motion to

U.S. Marshal for service (& Auth. in

Supp of Motion)

3- Authorities in Support of Motion to

Consolidate, filed.

XXVii i

6-21-73 4- Summons ret/ex-Auth. Agt. for Gov.

Briscoe served-6-19-73-Fisher DUSM

$3.00

6-21-73 5. Summons ret/ex-Auth. Agt. for Sec'y

St of Tex served 6-19-73 $3.00-Fisher

DUSM

6-27-73 6- Letter from Judge Roberts to Judge

Brown (Chief Judge, 5th Circuit) re de-

termining if this case is 3-judge and

whether or not it should be consolidated

with Graves v. Barnes (A-71-CA-142, 143,

144, 145)

7-5-73 7- Exhibits to Original Complaint (inad-

vertently omitted) filed. Copies to Gov.

and Secretary of State.

7-9-73 8- Motion for Extension of Time to File

an Answer, filed.

7-12-73 9- Order granting defts Motion for exten-

sion of Time filed. Copies mailed to

attys of record

7-17-73 10- Order granting three Judge Honorable

Irving L. Goldberg, U.S. Court of Appeals,

5th Circuit and Honorable William Wayne

Justice and Honorable Jack Roberts, filed.

Copies mailed to all Judges and attys for

both sides

7-23-73 11- Deft's Original Answer Mark White &

Dolph Briscoe to Complaint filed

8-7-73 12- Motion to Intervene filed by Charles

xxviii

9-5-73

9-21-73

9-28-73

10-4-73

10-19-73

Wright, Eddie Humphrey, David 0. Green,

Sr., Alfredo B. Jaimie, R. G. Halliburton,

Raymond Scott, Oscar Sanchez, Louie Ro-

sales, Edmundo Castillo, & Johnnie Hen-

derson (Dave Richards, attorney)

13- Motion to Intervene filed by Franklin

R. Sears, Rev. C.A. Holliday, Alan Mc-

Neill, Walter S. Smith, Jr., Harrell Z.

Browning, Vincent Kemendo, Williams C.

Davidson, Jr., Joe Summers, Jr., and

C. B. Garcia, filed. Copy to judges.

14- Order entered by Chief Judge John

R. Brown, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

consolidating A-73-CA-155 with this case.

Copy to attorneys. (For hearing only)

15- Order entered by Chief Judge John R.

Brown, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,

consolidating A-73-CA-115, 146 and 155

and A-71-CA-142-143, 144 and 145-copy to

attorneys in all cases. (Docketing will

be in this (A-73-CA-115 case) as well as

filing of instruments) (For hearing only)

16- Order entered by Managing Judge Wayne

Justice setting consolidated trial date

of Dec. 3, 1973 at 9:00 a.m. at Austin.

Order also grants all petitions for inter-

vention pending before the panel.

17- Motion to Intervene filed by Collis

E. Lannon & Cleveland Nisby (in all ?

cases) Dave Richards, Attorney-filed in

No. A-71-CA-142 (#108).

vviv

11-5-73 18- Notice of Deposition of R. C. John-

son by Pitffs, filed. Copy to Judges.

11-5-73 18a- Notice of Deposition of Betty Fischer

by Pitffs, filed.

11-6-73 19- Interrogs to Defts filed by Pltff-

Intervenors Charles Wright et ai (filed

in A-71-CA-142)

11-13-73 20- Order setting Nov. 26 for briefs to

be filed. Copy to attorneys & Judges.

Filed in A-71-CA-142

11-14-73 20a- Notice of Deposition of Felix Mc-

Donald, filed by Attys for Defts Mark

White, et al

11-15-73 21- Interrogs to Defts. filed by Pitff

Dr. Willeford & Plitff Intervr. Franklin

R. Sears (filed in A-71-CA-142)

11-21-73 2la- Notice of Deposition of Tom Moore

filed by Attys for Defts. Mark White

et al

11-27-73 22- Oral Deposition of R. C. Johnson,

filed (With exhibits)

11-27-73 23- Oral Deposition of Betty J. Fischer,

filed (with exhibits)

11-27-73 24- Oral Deposition of Joyce Wendel]

Sifford, filed (with exhibits)

11-23-73 25- Motion for Leave to File an Amend-

ment to Complaint (to litigate for law-

ful claim for attorney's fees) with pro-

posed Order and proposed Amended Complaint

att'd. Copy to Judges.

11-23-73 26- Trial Brief of Plaintiffs-Interven-

ors (Tarrant County, Dist. 32) filed.

Copy to Managing Judge Wayne Justice.

Pee

tae

snr

12-1-73

1-28-74

1-30-74

2-5-74

6-7-74

NOTE: ALL SUBSEQUENT DOCKETING IN

A-71-CA-142-(Trial held Dec. 3 thru

Dec. 5) (second hearing held Jan. 28

1974)

27- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Majori-

ty, Judges Goldberg and Justice) filed*

28- FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER FILED

Notice of Appeal, filed. Copy to 3

Judges & Supreme Court Clerk.

CLOSED JS-6 CARD Made.

*(Minority opinion (Judge John H. Wood,

dissenting) filed in A-71-CA-142)

29- Order Supreme Court U.S. has PROBA-

BLE JURISDICTION filed A-71-CA-143,

A-73-CA-146 & A-73-CA-115

XxXxi

ee ee ee nS ek ao

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CURTIS GRAVES, ET AL

VS.

BEN BARNES, ET AL

DIANA REGESTER, ET AL.

VS.

BOB BULLOCK, ET AL.

JOHNNY MARRIOTT, ET AL.,

VS.

PRESTON SMITH

VAN HENRY ARCHER

VS.

PRESTON SMITH, ET AL

FRANK A. ESCALANTE, ET AL.

VS.

MARK WHITE, ET AL

ee eee eee ee ee

CIVIL ACTION NO.

A-71-CA-142

CIVIL ACTION NO.

A-71-CA-143

CIVIL ACTION NO.

A-71-CA-144

CIVIL ACTION NO.

A-71-CA-145

CIVIL ACTION NO.

A-73-CA-155

JAMES GASKIN, ET AL,

IVIL ACTION NO.

VS.

A-73-CA-146

MARK WHITE, ET AL

WANDA L. CHAPMAN, ET AL.

IVIL ACTION NO.

VS.

A-73-CA-155

MARK W. WHITE, JR., ET AL

ee i ee ee ee

VOLUME I of 3

Pages 1 through 283

HEARD AT: AUSTIN, TEXAS

ON: DECEMBER 3-5, 1973

aves Shae eH SR

ab ‘

[2] [3]

APPEARANCES:

HON. DAVID E. RICHARDS

Clinton & Richards

600 West 7th Street

Austin, Texas 78701

SEN. OSCAR MAUZY

8204 Elmbrook Drive

Dallas, Texas 75247

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS

CHARLES WRIGHT, ET AL

HON. R. JAMES GEORGE, JR

Graves, Dougherty, Hearon, Moody & Garwood

Austin National Bank Building

Austin, Texas 78701

ATTORNEYS FOR LOCAL AND STATE

REPUBLICAN PLAINTIFFS AND

INTERVENORS

HON. GEORGE J. KORBEI

501 Petroleum Commerce Building

201 North St. Mary's Street

San Antonio, Texas 78206

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

GONZALES, ET AL, AND

INTERVENORS MORENO, ET AL

HON J. PHILLIP CRAWFORD

P. 0. Box 6277

Austin, Texas 78762

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

w CHAPMAN, ET AL.

[4]

APPEARANCE S (Continued):

HON. NORMAN M. BONNER, JR.

Suite 838-Baker Bldg.

7th & Houston Streets

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

HON GEORGE MARTINEZ = ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

934 - (Suite) AND INTERVENORS GASKIN,

555 Griffin Square ET AL.

Dailas, Texas 75201

HON. CHARLES E. WILLIAMS III

10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019

HON. DON GLADDEN and

HON MARVIN COLLINS

702 Burk Burnett Bldg.

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND

INTERVENORS FRANK A. ESCALANTE,

ET AL.

HON LARRY F. YORK

HON. ELIZABETH LEVATINO

HON. TOM BLACK

Assistant Attorney General

P. 0. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

3 [5]

BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 3rd

day of December, 1973, before a panel composed of

the HONORABLE IRVING L. GOLDBERG, Judge, U.S.

Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, HONORABLE WILLIAM

WAYNE JUSTICE, United States District Judge,

Eastern District of Texas, and HONORABLE JOHN H.

WOOD, JR., United States District Judge, Western

District of Texas, the above consolidated Civil

Actions came on to be heard, at which time the

following proceedings were had:

AUSTIN, TEXAS

DECEMBER 3, 1973

FIRST DAY OF TRIAL

JUDGE GOLDBERG: I think it would be really

carrying coals to Newcastle or cases, wherever

they're carried, to give the numbers and the styles

of the cases. I think everybody knows we're here

in consolidated hearing on seven cases, involving

legislative redistricting.

In accordance with my custom when I sit on

three-judge courts, I turn over the housekeeping

and managing details to the managing judge, in

this case Judge Justice, and I'm going to let him

set the ground rules that we have discussed and

[6]

which have evolved in discussion with Counsel and

correspondence with Counsel.

Judge Justice, I'll let you manage it.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Thank you, sir.

I think it is in order, first of all, that we

see who is here and who represents each of the

parties.

Would the Plaintiffs in the case please iden-

tify themselves and identify for the record who it

is they represent?

Mr. Richards?

MR. RICHARDS: David R. Richards of the law

firm Clinton & Richards of Austin, Texas, and ap-

pearing here on behalf of the Intervenors, Charles

Wright, et al, who have filed and been received as

Intervenors in the original action, the Regester

action, as well as the Escalante action.

My Plaintiffs challenge the at-large districts

in each of the state's nine multi-member districts.

Mr. Oscar Mauzy of Dallas is appearing with me in

that regard.

MR. GEORGE: My name is R. James George, of

tne firm of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon, Moody &

Garwood. I represent the Republican Plaintiffs and

[7]

Intervenors in this cause, originally Dr. George

Willeford and Intervenors Frank Sears, et al.

MR. KORBEL: My name is George Korbel. I am

with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educa-

tional Fund. We represent the original Plain- |

tiffs Gonzales, et al, and the Intervenors Moreno,

et al. We're appearing in all these cases except

for Jefferson County today.

MR. CRAWFORD: J. Phillip Crawford, and I repre-

sent the Plaintiffs in an original action, indepen-

dent proceeding Chapman versus White, which has

been more recently consolidated. Our incerest in

this proceeding is limited to Travis County.

MR. BONNER: I'm Norman Bonner, Jr., of Fort

Worth, of the firm of Mitchell & Bonner. I repre-

sent Plaintiffs-Intervenors Gaskin, et al. Our

interest is restricted to Tarrant County. This

is my associate, Charles Williams, of the N.A.A.C.P.

Defense Fund, New York; George Martinez, Dallas,

Texas.

MR. GLADDEN: My name is Don Gladden. I am

here on behalf of Plaintiffs Frank A. Escalante

and others in Cause No. 73-CA-115. They are also

Intervenors in the original suit heard in this

Court. I am associated with Mr. Marvin Collins of

[8]

my office who will be here also in connection with

that case. Our primary concern is the Tarrant

County multi-member district.

JUDGE JUSTICE: These other gentlemen that

are there with you?

MR. LEWIS: Gibson Lewis. I'm a witness for

the State.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Does that take care of all the

Plaintiffs and Intervenors?

All right, the Defendants?

MR. YORK: Larry York, Your Honor, Elizabeth

Levatino, Tom Black and I represent the Defendant

Governor Briscoe, and the Secretary of State, Mark

White, who is here in the courtroom with us.

I would--I don't know if this is the time to

raise it or not, but Mr. Korbel's statememt that

they had attacked the districts in all but, I be-

lieve Jefferson County--I'm not clear on the plead-

ings. It would appear from our reading of the

pleadings subject to correction that the MALDEF

group have not filed pleadings attacking the dis-

trict’ng situation in Hidalgo County or in Nueces

County. If I have misread that, then we stand

corrected.

MR. KORBEL: Well, the original Plaintiffs,

[9]

Bernal, et al, did have Plaintiffs in Hidalgo

County and Nueces County, and rather than unneces-

sarily burden the Court with additional pleadings,

we were just going under those same pleadings.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well, in order that there may

be no question about who it is you represent in

what actions, with the concurrence of the Court,

you will be permitted to amend and make them par-

ties in all actions.

MR. KORBEL: Thank you.

MR. YORK: Thank you, Your Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: There is one housekeeping de-

tail that needs to be taken care of. The motion

to file an amicus curiae brief in behalf of the

Texas Women's Political Caucus will be granted.

In pretrial discussions with the various at-

torneys representing some of the parties, it has

been brought to the attention of the Court that

the parties are in agreement, and if I have been

misinformed about this, of course, I will expect

that you will correct me, but I have been informed

that the parties are in agreement that all evidence

relating to the Tarrant County case will be pre-

sented first, both from the standpoint of the

Plaintiffs and Intervenors and the Defendants.

[10]

Following the resolution of the evidence in

the Tarrant County case, we then move to all the

remaining counties. As I understand it, the

Plaintiffs and Intervenors propose to present

all evidence relating to all of che remaining

counties consecutively, whereas, it is the desire

of the State of Texas that each county be taken

separately, that evidence relating to that parti-

cular county be presented by the Plaintiffs and

then there be an opportunity by the State to pre-

sent evidence relating to that county and then

moving on to another.

Have I correctly stated the proposition or

the agreement?

MR. YORK: Yes, sir.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Or rather what the arguments

are, I should say. Am I correct in that?

MR. YORK: Yes, sir, I believe that's correct.

MR. RICHARDS: May I say it would be impossible

for us to proceed that way.

JUDGE JUSTICE: The Court has engaged in a dis-

cussion relating to this matter and have expressed

a preference to go forward with the evidence re-

lating to all counties at one time.

(11]

This is in view of the fact that a large portion

of the evidence, in any event, is going to be by

deposition, and we don't feel that we will be

unnecessarily confused, because we can organize

this material after the conclusion of the case.

It has been brought to the attention of the

Court that as of 15 minutes til] 9:00 this morn-

ing, the Plaintiffs and Intervenors had not made

a deposit required by the Court. Has that been

done?

MR. KORBEL: Your Honor, | can speak for my

office. All of our bookkeeping goes on in San

Francisco, and I talked to them on Thursday and

again on Saturday, and it will be wired to the

Court today and should be received by the Clerk

today.

MR. GEORGE: I represent the Republicans, and

our deposit for one-third of Plaintiffs’ share was

made seconds ago.

JUDGE JUSTICE: That accounts for two-thirds.

What about the remaining Plaintiffs?

MR. RICHARDS: The remaining third will be ne-

gotiated during the day, I hope.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well now, is this an assurance

or a hope?

MR. RICHARDS: Oh, it will be covered, Your

[12]

Honor, before the case is over, before we con-

clude the proceedings here, certainly, Your

Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All right, Counsel.

MR. KORBEL: May I speak? On Saturday I

talked to Nathan Eason, who represented the origi-

nal Plaintiff, Van Henry Archer, in the San Antonio

Republican case, and he told me that if all the

money details were taken care of by the active

parties in this case that he wouldn't approach his

clients for additional money, but that should we

run short, he would approach his clients, and he

wanted the Court to be assured of this.

JUDGE JUSTICE: I think the Court has already

ruled against his clients in the case, in any event,

so I don't see that he has any remaining interest

in it. I can understand his reluctance to advance

any more money.

Now, some of the Plaintiffs and some of the In-

tervenors have given their exhibit lists to the

Clerk. Some have failed to do so.

Will the Clerk please announce who is in error

or who has fallen down?

CLERK OF THE COURT: I have not received any.

JUDGE JUSTICE: You have not received any?

(13]

The order of the Court was that the parties

were to furnish each other with witness lists to-

gether with a summary of the qualifications of each

of the expert witnesses. Has that been done?

MR. RICHARDS: It has, Your Honor, and we

have tendered to the State an inspection of all of

our exhibits, but Mr. Korbel and I and Mr. George

and Mr. Crawford, and my exhibit list is currently

being typed and will be available before we start

putting on any evidence today.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Are your exhibits marked?

MR. RICHARDS: Mine are marked.

It's simply a matter of typing up the list.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well now, we're not going to

take time in this trial to wait for someone to

mark an exhibit.

MR. RICHARDS: Oh, mine are marked.

JUDGE JUSTICE: We will expect that all of them

will be marked and that you will furnish forthwith

everyone a 1 «t of your exhibits to be filed with

the Clerk during the first recess, if you haven't

already done it.

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, we do have our

exhibits. All exhibits have been exchanged with

the State, copies of all of our exhibits have

[14]

been furnished to the State. We have not pre-

pared -- we have furnished the witness list to

the State. We have not prepared a narrative of

qualifications of the expert witnesses. Each

of their depositions have been taken, and their

qualifications were developed in those depositions,

and the State is aware of their qualifications.

We apologize for not having the summary of the

qualifications ready for the Court at this time.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: You understand this Court

is going to have to examine exhibits and deposi-

tions that are on file at the end of this trial.

You all can exchange among yourselves and have a

very nice time at this, but we're going to be

sure that the Clerk has in her possession the ex-

hibits and the depositions that we're supposed to

be reading when we decide this case.

Does everybody understand this?

MR. GLADDEN: We understand, Your Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: The Court feels it is well

aware of the points in issue in the cases before

us, SO we're going to limit the opening statements

to five minutes. The Tarrant County Plaintiffs

may proceed. Please come to the lectern.

Incidentally, the Clerk necessarily is going

_—

[15]

to have a great deal of difficulty -- or rather,

the court reporter is going to have a great deal

of difficulty in identifying who these various

speakers are, so if you rise to make some state-

ment or make an objection, please call your name

off for her benefit.

TARRANT COUNTY PLAINTIFFS' OPENING STATEMENT

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, my name is

Don Gladden. I am attorney for Frank Escalante,

et al, in the consolidated cases and in Case No.

73-CA-115.

Our petition speaks for itself. We are at-

tacking the constitutionality of the multi-member

district in District 32 of the State of Texas,

wherein there are nine members elected at large

under the place system. It is anticipated that

tris attack will turn on not only ethnic minority

suppression but economic minority suppression, and

we will hope to show the Court that the effect of

the multi-member district in Tarrant County crosses

so as to deny representation or effective represen-

tation not only to ethnic minorities but to economic

minorities, both at each and

I AP na a 86s

[16]

of the economic spectrum in Tarrant County.

Mr. Bonner also is representing some Tarrant

County Plaintiffs, and I will yield the rest of the

time to Mr. Bonner.

MR. BONNER: Please the Court, I am Norman

Bonner, Jr., of Fort Worth. I am also representing

a group of Tarrant County residents who are chal-

lenging multi-member legislative electoral system

as it applies to Tarrant County. Our issues are

virtually the same as those of Mr. Gladden. Our

focus is on the diluting effect that the system

has on minority votes. Our emphasis is primarily

on the ethnic aspect of the case, and with that

brief statement, I'1] yield the podium also.

MR. GEORGE: My name is Jim George. I repre-

sent the Republican Plaintiffs in Tarrant County,

and we will not present any live testimony in this

cause at this time.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Thank you. You may proceed with

your evidence then.

MR. GLADDEN: Beg your pardon, Your Honor?

JUDGE JUSTICE: You may proceed with your evi-

dence.

MR. RICHARDS: Could we be excused? I have to

prepare witnesses. Could I be excused while the

(17]

Tarrant County evidence is being offered?

JUDGE JUSTICE: Yes.

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, at this time

I would like to call to the attention of the Court

that we have filed a motion for leave to file an

amendment relative to attorney's fees. We would

like to ask the Court to afford us that opportunity.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Very well.

MR. GLADDEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

At this time, Your Honor, we would like to of-

fer into evidence and have talked with the State

of Texas relative to the procedure that we are to

follow in terms. of getting the evidence into the

record. We would like to tender a significant

number of exhibits with the understanding that if

they have not already been proved up by deposition

that we will come forward with the proof at the ap-

propriate time, but rather than take the time to

h hand them to the witness, the State has been kind

enough to afford us the privilege of putting them

in at the begirning of the trial. At this time

we would like to offer the following exhibits which

are in and affixed to the depositions.

EC LIED ICO 8 NE .

| diiateniied a + > lh tt ee an a eee eer ee a

[18]

We would like to offer Plaintiff Escalante's

Exhibit 2(a), which deals with Tarrant County cen-

sus information prepared by the Department of

Commerce, 2(b), which is also census information

affecting Fort Worth metropolitan area. 3(a)

through (i) which are voter applications of the

present members of the Legislature. No. 4, which

is ballots of the Democratic primary from 1960

through 1972 with the exception of '64 and ‘68

where there are taily sheets.

No. 5, which is a list of the Republican can-

didates from 1960 to 1972. In each instance when

I make reference to this---.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well now, have you gotall your

exhibits listed tiere?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Why don't you just move their

admission, instead of going through each one indi-

vidually?

MR. GLADDEN: All right. We move the admission

of Plaintiff Escalante's deposition exhibits 2(a)

through 18(e), Your Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All right. Is there objection?

MR. YORK: May I have just a moment, Your

er ecco os

F ‘Sa teaese

[19]

Honor? I haven't seen this particular list.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Yes sir.

(REPORTER'S NOTE: Counsel for Defendants

examine exhibit list.)

MR. YORK: Your Honor, we have no objection

to the list of exhibits offered by Counsel, ex-

cept for Exhibits 16 and 17, which purport to be

selected newspaper clippings from the Fort Worth

Star Telegram and Fort Worth Press. We would

object to those on the basis that they are

hearsay 2nd we contend irrelevant to any issues

before this Court.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well, when the exhibits are

offered or when reference is made to these parti-

cular exhibits, please renew your objection at

that time so that we can see how it is in the con-

text of the case.

MR. YORK: All right, sir.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All other exhibits are re-

ceived in evidence.

(20]

(PLAINTIFF ESCALANTE'S EXHIBITS NOS.

2(a) through 18(e) were previously

marked for identification)

MR. GLADDEN: In addition to those exhibits

Your Honor, we would like to offer as new exhibits---.

JUDGE JUSTICE: What do you mean new exhibits?

MR. GLADDEN: These were exhibits that were

offered at the time of the depositions, Your

Honor, and I thought it would be easier for the

State to make their objections, since they say

those at the depositions, so I am offering them

in three packages, actually.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All right, go ahead.

MR. GLADDEN: We would like to offer Plain-

tiff Escalante's Exhibit 0, Plaintiff Escalante's

Exhibit 1(a) through (e), which is a map that we

previously furnished, Escalante's Exhibit No. 22,

some additional slate cards, and Plaintiff's

Exhibit No. 21, which are additional newspaper

clippings, and 19 and 20, which are leaflets that

were generaliy circulated. We would like to ten-

der those in evidence.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there objection?

MR. YORK: Your Honor, I understand that

oo TORS A TED IG. ME age) COR TN BB RI bre TES ely

[21]

there is a group of newspaper clippings in this.

We will have the same hearsay and relevance ob-

jections that we have earlier expressed, which we

can urge later.

JUDGE WOOD: Is that to 21?

MR. YORK: I believe that's correct.

MR. GLADDEN: Yes.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Well, as I understand the law,

the Court in a non-jury case ordinarily will just

overrule all objections, and you'll just have to

leave it to us to not consider it if we decide it

is not admissible, so your objections as to all

this about the newspaper articles will be over-

ruled. If we find them to be irrelevant, they

will not be considered.

MR. YORK: I hope the Court won't be offended

if to preserve the record we make our objection.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Certainly, your objection

will be noted.

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, we're not of-

fering them for the facts of the articles them-

selves, but to show the racial attitude of the

community, rather than the facts themselves.

MR. YORK: I would make one objection, Your

Honor, to the use of the map which, I believe, is

[22]

at least insofar as it purports to set out the

plan Mr. Gladden's group proposes to the Court.

As we understand it, this part of the procedure

is not for the consideration of the plans, but

rather considering whether or not the present

multi-member situation is unconstitutional. If

the plan if offered for the limited purpose to

Show the Court that it might be feasible to draw

up another sort of plan, we would have no objec-

tion to it, but as far as the merits of the plan

itself, we would object to it.

MR. GLADDEN: May it please the Court, I

would like to respond to that. This portion of

the map that we're offering at this time does not

relate to the plan. We do anticipate seeking to

furnish the Court with the plan for two purposes,

but we have reserved three exhibits that would

go to the question cf the plan and will offer

them at that time, rather than at this time, at

which time we would like to explain to the Court

why we feel like the plan is essential at this

part of the lawsuit or at the stage we do tender

and offer the plan.

JUDGE JUSTICE: The various exhibits men-

tioned by Counsel ate received in evidence.

[23]

Do you have another list of exhibits?

MR. GLADDEN: Just a moment, Your Honor.

I'll see.

(PAUSE )

JUDGE JUSTICE: Let's move forward, Counsel.

MR. GLADDEN: At this time, Your Honor, we

would like to offer in evidence a stipulation by

and between the law orifices of Don Gladden and

the Attorney General's Ovfice, representing

Defendants, relative to Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and

zero, establishing the lines that presently exist

of District 32.

At this time we would like to call---.

JUDGE JUSTICE: One moment.

Mr. Bonner, do you have any exhibits to offer?

MR. BONNER: No, Your Honor, we have no exhi-

bits to offer.

MR. GLADDEN: We do have an addition to that,

Your Honor, additional exhibits, No. 1(a) prime

through 3 and 9 prime, which are summary exhibits

which will be used by the expert witnesses when

they testify relative to the statistical data.

JUDGE WOOD: What is the exhibit number?

MR. GLADDEN: Exhibit No. 1(a) prime. Nor

[24]

the reason we numbered them this way is because

they relate to the other evidence that's gone in.

This is a compilation of the census information.

JUDGE WOOD: Compilation and summary?

MR. GLADDEN: Yes. They are prime exhibits

as they relate to that. We have attached for the

benefit of the Court three copies of the prime ex-

hibits, because it will be dealing with figures,

rather than other evidence.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there objection te the

prime exhibits?

MR. YORK: We have no objection to the prime

exhibits, Your Honor.

THE COURT: They will be received in evi-

dence.

MR. BONNER: Please the Court---.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Yes, sir.

MR. BONNER: In response to your question I said

we had no exhibits to offer. We do have an exhibit

to offer in connection with our plan, but in terms

of offering an exhibit to the facts of the lawsuit

I'm sure Mr. Gladden has done a sufficiently

thorough job that it behooves us to avoid duplica-

tion, so we would defer preparing exhibits for trial.

[25]

JUDGE JUSTICE: Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: May it please the Court, I am

Marvin Collins, attorney for Plaintiff Escalante

associated with Mr. Gladden, and at this time to

expedite the trial, we would like to present to

the Court a motion to take judicial notice of the

testimony given at the former trial of the case of

Graves versus Barnes, and our purpose in doing so,

we realize it has already been consolidated. Our

purpose in doing so is simply to protect the pos-

sible appellate record in the case in order that

if there is any technical objection to whether

that evidence in that case is still alive, that if

this Court receives an omnibus offer of the evi-

dence presented in that case, *hen the record, I

think, will be protected in the new cases. I have

furnished the State with a copy of this motion.

JUDGE WOOD: In other words, Mr. Collins,

what you want to do is have us to be in a position

to consider all the evidence and testimony adduced

at the first trial?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

JUDGE WOOD: Where it is applicable to this

case?

MR. COLLINS: That's correct, Your Honor.

[26]

and in addition to that, not just by way of the

fact that it is consolidated with that case, but

actually we are tendering and offering, if we can, ’

that evidence at this time, or in the alternative

we're asking that this Court take judicial notice

of it since it is the same three-judge court, and

the parties basically are lined up the same way.

The same Plaintiffs are not here to some extent,

but all of the relevant considerations for admis-

sion or testimony given in the former trial, I

think, are present, except for the fact that the

witnesses then and the evidence then are available®

now. However, this Court did enter an order with

respect to the depositions in that regard so that

that is not an objection to our deposition testi-

mony. I feel like it is appropriate here, too.

JUDGE WOOD: Isn't that such a shotgun ap-

proach to this thing, and isn't it going to make

this recond so monumentally large that it is going

to be difficult to send it up the Supreme Court if

you make every part of the original transcript

a part of this record? Isn't that too much?

Shouldn't it be limited to only that which is

applicable to this case?

MR. COLLINS: Perhaps for purposes of

[27]

convenience, there is a justification, Your Honor,

for admitting it, and that is, I feel like it will

permit the Court to consider all of that evidence

and will permit an appellate court to consider all

of that evidence in support of whatever this Court

decides, and I feel like since the record was made,

it is something which would expedite the Clerk's

transcript on appeal.

MR. KORBEL: May I speak, Your Honor, for Dave

Richards---?

JUDGE GOLDBERG: We can't hear you.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Let me say something.

Everyone on this side of the room raise your

voice to about twice your normal volume.

MR. KORBEL: If I might speak for David

Richards, one of his exhibits -- one of our ex-

hibits is going to be an appendix, which was of-

fered the Supreme Court in this case, which in-

cludes the testimony and substantial parts of the

depositions, and I believe that this is the appen-

dix that will facilitate the Court's use of this

previous record.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Is that all of the testi-

mony in the---?

[28]

MR. KORBEL: Yes, sir, it's the entire

testimony.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: In the original case?

MR.KORBEL: And substantially all the deposi-

tions.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: What do you want?

MR. KORBEL: Your Honor, I was not aware of

that, and if I may file my motion, I think that

will take care of it.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Thank you.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All right, let's proceed with

some evidence here.

MR. GLADDEN: We would like to call Mr. R. C.

Johnson.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Come forward, Mr. Johnson.

MR. YORK: We would like to raise a matter

partly just for the guidance of the Court and

partly by way of objection. Mr. Johnson's deposi-

tion was taken in Fort Worth along with the deposi-

tions of two or three others who, I understand, Mr.

Gladden intends to call. These depositions were

taken fully by our side, and it seemed to us a

full direct examination by Mr. Gladden. Ordinarily,

one would not object to a witness testifying from

the witness stand whose deposition has been taken,

[29]

but in view of the limited time we all have in

this case and in view of the fact that we may well

have similar problems with our own witnesses, we

would like, I think, to make an objection to the

duplication which I understand will come, because

I know they intend to offer the depositions. We

intend to object to it as repetitious and then to

ask the Court's guidance about what all of us

should be doing in that regard.

(REPORTER'S NOTE: The Court confer out

of the presence and hearing of the court

reporter. )

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can make a

suggestion here. First of all, you know we are un-

der a deadline. We're going to try in this case,

as we did last time, to come out with whatever we

come out with way in advance of the filing for the

position. That's the first thing-I want to say.

And we've got to have cooperation. Up to now we've

gotten it a hundred percent, Judge Justice assures

me, and from what I have seen that is certainly

true. It seems to me that al! of the depositions

ought to be offered, and you use your live witnesses

ee PDEA KET APL and SM As ee iW

[30]

just as supplementary material or to attack it,

but let's don't have a repetition of everything

that is in the depositions, and I think that is

your position, is it not, Mr. York?

MR. YORK: Yes, sir, that's correct.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Is there any objection to

that?

MR. GLADDEN: No. Your Honor. What we anti-

cipate doing in this connection -- we certainly

will offer the depositions. We do want to identify

the witness at least sufficiently so the Court is

acquainted withwho it is, and that, of course,

will be repetition, because he was identified in

the deposition, but insofar as the material evi-

dence as to the course of this lawsuit, mose likely

anything offered will be new evidence.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: We could survive a minimum of

repetition, but a minimum is a minimum.

MR. GLADDEN: I appreciate that, Your Honor.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Proceed.

JUDGE JUSTICE: All right, raise your hand

and be sworn.

~ " : BGS OS® TR

[31]

R. C. JOHNSON

a witness called by the Tarrant County Plaintiffs,

having been first duly cautioned and sworn to tes-

tify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. State your name for the Court, please.

A. R. C. JOHNSON.

Q. Mr. Johnson, I'll ask you if you are the

same person who has testified in this case earlier

by deposition.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And you reside in Tarrant County. Is that

correct?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And Fort Worth?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have previously in your deposition

identified yourself as President of the Tarrant

County

ROR VRE

[32]

Precinct Workers Council. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is a black organization of pri-

marily precinct charimen who are black and who

hold office in the Democratic primary?

A. Yes.

Q. At the time of vour deposition you were

asked by the State -- first of all, at the time of

your deposition you identified certain slate cads

as being cards which were distributed and circu-

lated by your organization primarily in the black

comminity so as to acquaint the community as to

who your organization was supporting. Is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time the State asked you if you

could locate and find additional slate cards that

showed your endorsement and support of legislative

candidates. Is that correct?

Rs 3Oe,

Q. Have you located some of those?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you located them at the time you signed

your deposition?

A. No, I had not.

MR. GLADDEN: May I approach the witness?

, il

(33]

JUDGE JUSTICE: Yes

Q. Mr. Johnson, I have handed you Plaintiff

Escalante's Exhibit 22, and I would like to ask you

if those are the additional slate cards that you

have located.

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And those do reflect your organization's

endorsement for several years. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. On several elections?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell the Court the manner that

those items were circulated?

A. Well, these are slate cards which were

given out from door to door by the precinct workers

within each precinct.

Q. And these slate cards are similar to or

were used in the same manner as those slate cards

you identified in your deposition. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In that connection one of yourexhibits there

shows on the back of it a list of persons who com-

posed the precinct chairmen that were endorsing

those candidates, does it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'll ask you whether or not each of those

Lee AGED MOE ab AIP EAE De we AS

[34]

persons are black and are members of the precinct

workers council.

a. Os

Q. None of the earlier slate cards or door

knockers that were distributed identified names in

terms of more than one person distributing. Is

that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. GLADDEN: I believe that's all, Your

Honor. Pass the witness.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there cross-examination?

MR. YORK: Your Honcr, we have no objection

to those exhibits, and I believe we fully covered

the cross-examination on deposition and we do not

have further cross-examination at this time.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Thank you very much.

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, at this time

we do offer all of Mr. R. C. Johnson's deposition.

JUDGE JUSTICE: It will be received in evi-

dence.

MR. GLADDEN: I would like to call Mr. J. W.

Sifford.

(WITNESS STANDS ASIDE. )

[35]

MR. YORK: Your Honor, I believe that most of

the depositions thatwere taken were taken with the

agreement of Counsel that ali objections would be

made at that time. There are objections within

the depositions, which we won't attempt to urge

now, but they are as a matter of record in the

depositions.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Then we will consider them

as we read the deposition.

J. W. SIFFORD

a witness called by the Tarrant County Plaintiffs,

having been first duly cautioned and sworn to testi-

fy the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. State your name to the Court please.

A. My full name is Joyce Wendell Sifford.

Q. You are the same person who has previously

testified in this case by deposition, are you not,

[36]

Mr. Sifford?

A. That is correct.

Q. In that connection you identified yourself

in the deposition as being for many years active in

Labor Union politics or in politics relative to

Labor Unions in Fort Worth. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And on most of the last few years you have

been president of the Central Labor Council, which

is a labor organization or a structure in which

most of the labor organizations in Tarrant County

participate. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And is one of the functions of that organi-

zation politics, and particularly legislative poli-

tics?

A. Right.

Q. Now, in that connection I'l] ask you, Mr.

Sifford, if you have had occasion to know as to the

expense and the cost of campaigning or running an

election for the Legislature in Tarrant County or

more recently in District 32?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. I'l] ask you whether or not you have had

occasion to know whether or not there are moneys

spent in connection with political campaigns in

Tarrant County and

(37]

in District 32 that do not find its way onto the

expense report of candidates in the Legislature.

A. Yes, I would say that there is considerable.

Q. Can you give the Court some instances to

your knowledge as to this type of expense that

have gone into campaigns that were not---?

A. One example would be like our own organiza-

tion, Tarrant County Labor Council. We put out

slate cards. We put out brochures. We put out

mailings to our members, which has run as high as

35,000 pieces of mailing. This wouldn't be for an

individual candidate but for a slate of candidates.

To my knowledge there are many organizations in the

county who, similar to Mr. Johnson's organization

and our organization, and many so-called special

interest groups, do do considerable for candidates

which the candidates have no knowledge or very

little knowledge, and so there is no way the candi-

date could report expenditures of this nature, and

so this certainly would not be shown in the re-

ported expenditure of candidates.

Q. In that connection, Mr. Sifford, do you have

an awareness as to whether or not the slated candi-

dates, those that have been slated by special in-

terests with other prospective candidates, would

have a greater expense or would show less reported

but a greater expenditure of money on their behalf?

[38]

A. I would think that this would be true.

Q. If an independent candidate who was spend-

ing money himself, as opposed to the slating pro-

cess, his would be more calculated to reflect more

accurately his expenditures. Is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Also I'll ask you, Mr. Sifford, if you

have an opinion as to whether or not there is a

cumulative effect of campaigning, that is, an in-

cumbent or person who has run for public office

prior to the particular campaign. Do you have an

opinion?

A. Yes. Of course, I don't want to get into

a long lecture. I think the Court is somewhat fami-

liar and most of the people here with politics, but

briefly the job of getting elected to the House of

Representatives is mostly a question of name expo-

sure, and to win an election a candidate must have

their name before the public, and this is where the

greatest expenditure comes in. A candidate who has

never ran before has no public exposure before, as

opposed to, for instance, Mr. Sherman, one of the

Tarrant County delegation, who was a television

personality for many years before he became a member

of the Legislature, and since this time has served

several terms. A person of that nature would have

considerably less expenditure, because he has, as

you said, cumulative effect over the years of not

only political

[39]

exposure, but before that professional exposure

through the medium of television, and so, certainly,

as the years go by and you get greater public expo-

sure, certainly your expenditures for this sort of

thing, which is the main expenditures that a candi-

date has, on a State Representative would tend to

lessen.

Q. As between an unknown and an incumbent who

has had exposure, the relative cost of the campaign

would vary significantly, would it not? In District

32, Tarrant County.

A. Very muchly so.

MR. GLADDEN: May I approach the witness?

JUDGE JUSTICE: Yes.

Q. I hand you what had been identified as

Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit No. 20. That is a

copy of a leaflet. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I'l] ask you to state whether or not that

is a copy of a leaflet that was used in 1970 State

Senate campaign in Tarrant County.

A. Yes, District 10.

Q. District 10 is composed of the northern

portion of Tarrant County---?

A. Right.

Q. ---and a significant part of District 32

[40]

Legislative District?

A. At that time it was a primary part of

Tarrant County.

Q. And it also encompasses a substantial pa

in fact, the biggest part of District 32 present’

does it not?

A. That is correct.

Q. I'll ask you whether or not to your know

ledge that item was circulated on behalf of the

™ cumbent State Senator? -

A. Yes, it was. I know personally, because

helped to stuff several hundred of these in an ¢«

velope that were sent out, and I received one of .

them at my house. The area where I live, which

Hurst, a middle-class suburb of the county, and

similar precincts were where these were sent.

Q. In that connection I'1] ask you whether

you are familiar with the results -- this was se

out in the second primary. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the first primary are you aware of |

the State Senator ran in the basically white pre

cincts?

A. Yes, sir, Senator Don Kennard who was t!

incumbent, trailed by 4,000 votes to Joe Shanno:

Jr., who was his major opponent. He led the fi

primary. In fact,

[41]

Senator Kennard barely did get into the runoff, but

in the runoff Senator Kennard was re-elected, and,

as I recall from reading the newspaper, the returns

in the newspapers, most of these all-white precincts

where this piece of literature was sent was reversed

from whereas Mr. Shannon had carried them in the first

primary, Senator Kennard carried them in the second

primary,

Q. This was after the mailer went into the

white precincts. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 that

you have reference to?

A. That's right.

MR. GLADDEN: Aj} right, we pass the witness.

JUDGE JUSTICE: | would like to see Plaintiff's

Exhibit 20,

(REPORTER'S NOTz: Court examine exhibit.)

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there objection to Plain-

tiff's Exhibit 20?

MR. YORK: We have no objection to it, Your

Honor.

—_ : — —_ |

[42]

JUDGE JUSTICE: It is received in evidence.

MR. GLADDEN: At this time, please the Court,

we would like to offer Joyce Wendell Sifford's

deposition into evidence.

JUDGE JUSTICE: It will be received in evi-

dence.

MR. GLADDEN: We'll call Mr. John Dillard.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Watt just one momemt. Is

there cross-examination of this witness?

MR. GLADDEN: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

MR. YORK: We're in favor of having an ab-

breviated procedure, Your Honor, but---.

MR. GLADDEN: I thought he had made all of

his objections during the deposition.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. YORK:

Q. Mr. Sifford, with regard to the exhibit

which was offered, which apparently took issue

with Mr. Shannon's vote on the anti-busing resolu-

tion in the Legisiature of this state, is ita

fact that you helped send that particular flier

out to precincts and people within Tarrany County?

[43]

A. Yes.

Q. I take it that was not just an individual

effort on your part, but one done as a part of your

organizational responsibilities in the Union activi-

ties?

A. It was a part of the campaign, not of the

Union but of the campaign of Senator Kennard.

Q. Well, were your efforts in that regard made

just J. W. Sifford personally kind of working at

home at night, or was it done as part of your offi-

cial activities?

A. It was done as part’ of the official activi-

ties. It was a case where we all] got together in a

place and, as happens many times in getting out

political mailings, a number of people came to this

place, and we all worked and stuffed the mailers.

Q. If we're to believe the papers and what we

see on television, at least, this kind of thing has

gone on, at least inthe highest levels of national

politics?

A. Well, I don't know what you're referring to

as this sort of thing. This was a vote that Repre-

sentative Shannon made, and that was on the record,

sO it was put out to the people. Representative

Shannon did not deny that he made this vote. He

did make the vote.

Q. I presume that this picture of two little

children praying was not in the record of the Legis-

lature?

A. Well, I wasn't present when the bill was

Spree 5 tRNA ARNE, ARINC RO RE ERIS Ch NRE 8 RA IS a Ran BIN ar RSNA +t

[44]

passed at the Legislature, but I would assume that

that is a correct statement.

Q. As far as I understand it, this Exhibit is

offered to in some way show the attitudes of people

in Tarrant County toward minorities?

A. Do you want me to answer as to what the

intent is?

Q. Well, sure, if you have a different idea

about it. What is your idea about why it is being

offered?

A. I assume it has been offered to show that

there is prejudice in Tarrant County and that it

tends to be effectively transmitted politically,

this prejudice.

Q. Would you think that you could find a

county in Texas or a county or parish in these

United States where the issues of busing of child-

ren is not an issue which would be calculated to

appea! to the prejudice of one sort or another in

people?

A. I doubt it.

Q. And in your own personal efforts in dis-

tributing this particular exhibit, I'm sure you

didn't think of yourself as a racist?

A. No.

Q. Just a brief reference to the word "Sslating'

which has been used. Am I correct in understanding

that the slating that you're talking about, if I

understand it

| ——7 Gi a Te

[45]

correctly, there are four or five groups in Tarrant

County which are the principal sort of organized

groups that deal in politics. There are the Labor

Unions and the precinct workers, which is princi-

pally black, a Mexican-American organization and

several others, comprising a total of about five,

including a sort of vaguely defined Seventh Street

group or business community. Is that a fair thumb-

nail description?

A. Substantially, aithough it varies from

year to year. There will be new ones; some will

drop out, and new ones will come in.

Q. As I understand it, in Tarrant County there

is a fairly wide divergence between those groups.

That is, I believe you have told us maybe on one

occasion in the last ten or fifteen years they have

kind of gotten together and tried to agree on a

Democratic slate, but at all other times there has

been divergence or difference of opinion among the

various groups about who ought to be supported as

Democratic candidates.

A. Yes. I think it would be safe to say that

a candidate running for the Legislature in Tarrant

County goes to one of two groups. It would be the

Labor group or the Seventh Street or business group

for support.

Q. And that is not uncommon throughout this

nation?

[46 ]

A. I wouldn't think so. To my knowledge it

is not.

Q. To seek the support of Labor and business?

A. Right.

Q. But there is not any one little group of

king makers sitting around anywhere in Tarrant

County that is able to say, "This fellow or this

lady will be a candidate on the Democratic primary."

There's four or five divergent groups that see dif-

ferently the issues and see differently the can-

didates, and it's kind of a fight among all of

them to see who gets on and who gets the support

after they get on?

A. Well, I don't know who makes the decisions

in the Seventh Street group, but I know the deci-

sion made in the organized Labor group is a Demo-

cratic process where all the delegates to the

Central Labor Council vote on who will be supported.

Q. And you talk to all candidates who want to

come and talk to you, I suppose?

A. Yes, sir, right, always have.

MR. YORK: I believe that's all we have,

Your Honor. Thank you.

Ee eo Bee ee a ea

" " ae St ATA A AEN Si AE RAT MD

[47]

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BONNER:

Q. I have one brief question for you, Mr.

Sifford. I believe on your deposition you dealt

with the racial---.

JUDGE WOOD: Counsel, I belive you have to

give your name, so the court reporter can get

3 7

MR. BONNER: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Norman

Bonner.

Q. In your deposition you dealt with the

racial aspects of campaigning for the Legislature

in Tarrant County?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall that, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have spoken today of the economic

aspect. What I want to ask you is, in your opinion

all things being equal where black and white candi-

dates are involved, which factor would be more deci-

Sive in tipping the scales in favor of one candidate

oa ES

PLE EN FD SR SN TIE Yes

Or another candidate, race or economics?

A. I would guess I would say race.

[48]

MR. BONNER: Pass the witness.

MR. GLADDEN: Don Gladden, Your Honor, on

redirect examination.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. Mr. Sifford, in connection with the slat-

ing process, the slating process takes place prior

to the Democratic primary. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that the slating is for the Democratic

primary, rather than agreeing upon a Democratic

candidate for the November elections. Is that

correct?

A. Primary.

Q. So the siating process takes place prior to

the Democratic primary, and that is what you had

reference to in your cross-examination. Is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I'l] ask you whether or not a person--that

the selection by the Labor and related selection

groups is tantamount to election, whether or not

the liberal labor communities placing a person's

name on a Slate, does that automatically mean that

person gets elected?

[49]

A. If I understand you right, the answer is

no.

Q. Now then, is it important, however, in

terms of being able to make a significant race, to

have the endorsement of one of the two slate-making

groups?

A. I would say that very seldom -- it's not

impossible, but it's highly improbable that any

candidate could be elected without the support of

of the the -- the support of one or the other

or both.

Q. In that connection we're talking about the

Seventh Street group and then the labor related

coalitions of liberal, black and brown community?

A. That's right, I would think that the candi-

date would have to have the support of one of the

two to have much of a chance.

MR. GLADDEN: Pass the witness.

MR. YORK: We have nothing further.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Are there other questions of this

witness.

MR. GLADDEN: I would like to call Mr. John

Dillard.

At this time, Your Honor, we would like to

[50}

offer in evidence J. W. Sifford's deposition,

if we have not.

JUDGE JUSTICE: It will be recetved in evi-

dence.

JOHN DILLARD

a witness called by the Tarrant County Plaintiffs,

having been first duly cautioned and sworn to tes-

tify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. State you name to the Court, please.

A. John Dillard.

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Dillard.

A. 3913 Wilbarger, Fort Worth, Texas.

Q. In that connection, if you will, speak

into the microphone so that it will be picked up

and all of us can hear.

How old are you, Mr. Dillard.

A. Twenty-three years old.

Pts ela. Re ge eee ee re Pre ee ee Cr ae nee oe a te Set ogy ee Se Bae Si vite R ge

—— oe

[51]

Q. What is your business, occupation or trade

at the moment?

A. I ama student.

Q. And where are you a student?

A. North Texas State University.

Q. And what is your major?

A. Sociology.

Q. I'll ask you how old you are.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: We got his age.

MR. GLADDEN: I apologize, Your Honor.

Q. In that connection, where is Wilbarger

Street in connection or in association with the

rest of Fort Worth or Tarrant County:

A. It's in the southeast corner of Fort Worth.

Q. I'll ask you, if you will, please, to de-

scribe the neighborhood and the makeup of that por-

tion of the community in which you live.

A. Well, it is working class population, and

it's about 50 percent white and 50 percent black

and a sprinkling of Chicanos.

Q. And I'll ask you what the economic level

of income is in that area, if you know.

A. It’s about four thousand co ten thousand.

Q. Four thousand to ten thousand dollars per

year?

[52]

A. Yes.

JUDGE JUSTICE: You're speaking about annual

income?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE WOOD: Average annual income?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. GLADDEN: Yes, Your Honor, average annual

income in a range from four thousand to ten

thousand.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Is this based on your know-

legde or what you got out of the census information?

THE WITNESS: Well, my parents make about

$5,000.00 a year, and the houses around where we

live look about the same, so that was my estima-

tion.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. In that connection you do live at home

with your parents, do you not?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is the general age makeup of the heads

of households in the community and area where you

live?

A. They are middle-age and older.

Q. And in that connection you say that it is

a working class community. Would you tell us

whether or not

[53]

it is made up primarily of skilled trademen or

unskilled workers?

A. Unskilled.

Q. Mr. Dillard, I'l] ask you what your earn-

ings were last year.

A. $2,700.00

Q. And you have testified that your parents

had a family income, a combined family income of

about $5,000.00?

A. Five.

Q. What does your father and mother do in

the way c* work?

A. My father is a laborer, building labor.

Q. Does he belong to a Union?

A. Yes, he does.

Q. Does he belong to the Laborer's Union, or

dv you know?

A. I'm not certain what Union.

Q. What does your mother do?

A. She works at a laundry.

Q. Has she just recently been employed at

the laundry?

A. Well, this year.

Q. In that connection I'l] ask you whether or

nec you have ever entertained, thought about or con-

sidered

eel om ve net Bee — ~ : : » a

[54]

seeking public office.

A. I have thought about it. I have dreamed

about it.

Q. I'll ask you whether or not you have ever

yiven any serious consideration to seeking public of-

fice in Tarrant County.

A. No.

Q. Or in District 32?

A. No.

Q. Why have you not given any serious consi-

deration to making such a race?

A. Well, I heard that it costs a lot of money,

and to get that kind of money, one needs to find

someone to finance their campaign, and I don't be-

lieve I want to commit myself to anyone else's

causes.

Q. In that connection I'll ask you whether

or not you have been active or have actively parti-

cipated in anybody else's political campaigns in the

past.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you tell the Court what campaigns

you have participated in and what nature of activity

you engaged in?

A. I worked in the Farenthold campaign and in

the McGovern campaign.

Q. What was the nature of the activity?

[55]

A. I made yard signs and knocked on people's

doors.

Q. Dc you feel that in the event or if it was

feasible to have a district composed of a portion of

District 32 where a door-knocking type campaign might

take place, that someone in your economic circumstances

might give serious consideration to seeking public

office, rather than dream of it?

A. Yes, sir, it does seem possible.

MR. GLADDEN: Pass the witness.

MR. YORK: Your Honor, I didn't want to be

taken a moment ago to be agreeing to a procedure

whereby Mr. Bonner would follow us.

JUDGE GOLBBERG: Mr. Bonner, do you have any

questions?

MR. BONNER: I'm sorry. We have no questions.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Go ahead.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. YORK:

Q. Mr. Dillard, what level are you in school?

Are you a junior or a graduate student---?

[56]

Senior

You're 25?

Twenth-three.

> oOo Y

Q. Twenty-three? Have you been in school con-

stantly since graduating from high school?

A. No, sir.

Q. What other jobs or trades have you fol-

lowed?

A. Well, I have taken a semester out and

worked at a motel last year.

Q. You worked for one semester in a motel.

Is that when you earned the twenty-seven hundred or

whatever it was?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is your mother and father's combined --

his Union work and her work, whatever it is, combined

totaling $5,000.00?

A. We don't discuss finances too much. I'm

not certain that's the combined total.

Q. You had expressed $5,000.00 as being the

family income. If you're uncertain about it, I

think it would be fair for the Court to know that,

or on the other hand, if you are certain---.

A. Yes, sir, I am uncertain of it.

Q. All right. It is true that you have never

given any serious consideration to running for the

| neal — ———————————————————_—eEeE~

[57]

Legislature from Tarrant County?

A. No, sir, I have never given it serious

consideration.

Q. Have you talked to Mr. Sifford with the

Trade Union people?

A. No, sir.

Q. Or talked to Mr. Johnson with the Pre-

cinct Workers?

A. No, sir.

Q. Or talked to anybody about it?

A. I have spoken to other people in the

Farenthold and McGovern campaign.

Q. In the McGovern campaign and Mrs. Farent-

hold's campaign, they both made extensive use of

media, television, radio, newspaper and every other

kind of media?

A. Yes, sir, I think they did.

Q. There would be nothing in those campaigns

that would lead you to believe that a purely shoe-

leather campaign would be likely to succeed, would

it?

A. Well, sir, I did not work in the media

portion of that campaign, and the portion of the

campaign that I worked in seemed to be having some

effect on the voters.

Q. Good or bad.

A. It seemed like it was a good effect, sir.

EE en ea

[58]

Q. Good. The truth of the matter, as far as

the Legislative Districts in Tarrant County, in terms

of the cost of campaigning for Legislative Districts

in Tarrant County, you have never worked in one of

those campaigns when an individual member ran for a

seat in the Texas Legislature? You've never worked

in one of those campaigns?

A. I did one day's work in a campaign, but

it wasn't significant, no, sir.

Q. I'm sure you're not privy to the inner

workings of how it was financed?

A. No, sir.

Q. You would recognize that it would cost

something to run a single-member district or multi-

member district campaign?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have expressed the view, I think, that

you are not much willing yourself -- would you view

it as sort of selling out to other people's causes

or views if you had to solicit money from others?

A. I believe so, sir.

Q. Could you come up with even a thousand or

two thousand dollars of your own money to run a race

in Tarrant County at this time?

A. At this time?

Q. Yes, sir.

ee |

A. No, not at this time.

MR. YORK: I believe that's all we have, Your

Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there redirect examination?

MR. GLADDEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. Mr. Dillard, in connection with the den-

sity of population in Fort Worth and in your neigh-

borhood, it is a typical medium-low income xesiden-

tial area. Is that not correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Houses are close together?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or

not a shoe-leather type campaign could be run in a

district wherein 75,000 population in that area,

whether or not you could based on your experience

in the Farenthold campaign and McGovern campaign,

whether or not an effort could be made to conduct

that type of a legislative campaign?

A. Yes, sir, I think you could knock on a

good

[60]

many doors.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or

not if you multiplied that nine and got into a popu-

lation of 650,000 whether or not it would be feasible

during the interest period of time to conduct a cam-

paign knocking on doors in a community of 650,000?

A. No, sir.

MR. GLADDEN: I believe that's all, Your

Honor.

MR. YORK: We have nothing further, Your

Honor.

JUDGE JUSTICE: You may stand down. Please

call your next witness.

(WITNESS STANDS ASIDE. )

MR. GLADDEN: We would like to call Mrs.

Betty Fischer.

Please the Court, Mr. Collins is going to be

our easel, because we were unable to locate one

earlier today, and I may have to excuse myself to

come back and help him.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: That's all right.

[61]

BETTY FISCHER,

a witness called by the Tarrant County Plaintiffs,

having been first duly cautioned and sworn to

testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. State your name to the Court, please.

A. I am Betty Fischer.

). Mrs. Fischer, I'll ask you if you have

previously testified in this case by way of deposi-

tion.

A. I did.

Q. And in that connection a series of maps

were offered in the deposition, which relate basic-

ally the same information that appears on this map.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. With some exceptions and some variances

in method. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. The map at the present time as it is

[62]

exhibited is identified as Plaintiff Excalante's

Exhibit No. 1(a). Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the black portion of that map repre-

sents that part of Tarrant County that is situated

in Legislative District 42. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. With one slight exception. Is that cor-

rect?

A. That's right.

Q. The exception to that is that the gray

area in the upper left-hand quarter in Census Tract

No. 141 was altered by an act during the 1972 special

legislative session. Is that not correct?

A. itnat's correct.

Q. And a portion of that census tract was

moved into Tarrait County?

A. That's right.

Q. That was in order to assist Representative

Gib Lewis to reside in District 32, rather than 42.

Is that correct? :

A. As I understand it, that's correct.

Q. Other than that one alteration, the white

area does represent District 32?

A. Yes.

Q. I'll ask you if you have attempted to locate

geographically the residences of the present mem-

bers of the Tarrant County Legislature or District

32 Legislature at the time that they were elected.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how is that identified on the map?

A. They are the green dots on the map.

Q. And that is based upon the exhibits pre-

viously offered in evidence showing their voter re-

gistrations for 1972?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. In that connection Mr. Lewis actually at

that point in time did show his residence over on

the right-hand side of the map---.

A. In Census Tract 6501.

Q. Mrs. Fischer, in connection with the over-

all map 1(a), you have done some statistical studies

have you not, and some pulling informatior from the

Plaintiff's Exhibits 2(a) and (b), which is the cen-

sus tract information and prepared summaries of the

over-all makeup of District 32?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1(a) prime

reflects the over-all information that shows the

district as a whole, does it not?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And we have previously offered and do

_ offer---.

[64]

This exhibit was prepared by you and based on the

earlier exhibit. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. GLADDEN: And we would like to -- we have

made extra copies for the Court to have relative to

the over-all makeup of the district.

Q. Now, in addition to that, have you under-

+ » to divide the county up into four quandrants

to show the economic, ethnic and social makeup of

the county by quadrand?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that is shown on this map as Plain-

tiff's Exhibit 1(b), and it reflects four lines that

may be difficult for the Court to see, but it re-

flects four lines dividing the county along census

tract lines. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it does.

G. And I'll ask you if you have done an eco-

nomic summary showing the ethnic makeup of those

quadrants.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In that connection you have previously

testified in the deposition about this without giv-

ing statistical information.

MR. GLADDEN: We would also like to at this

time offer the Court a breakdown on each of tne quad-

rants or the quarters of the county showing variations

of the economic makeup. Now, beginning,

[65]

if I may, Mrs. Fischer, with the northwest quadrant,

that area which is on the upper left of the map

does have a total population of 171,000. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. The ethnic makeup is basically 82 percent

white, 7 percent black and 11 percent brown?

A. That is correct.

Q. And has a mean family income based on the

census information of $9,317.00?

A. That is correct.

Q. That is as compared to the over-all district-

wide mean income of $11,000.00?

A. Yes.

Q. That quadrant is below the mean income of

the district as a whole?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And the mean family size of that quadrant

A. That's right.

Q. Now, moving on to the northeast quadrant

with 178,000, that is 95 percent white. Is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Two percent black?

A. Correct.

[66]

And three percent brown?

Yes.

And the mean family income is $12,605.00?

That's right.

Q. How many of the present members of the Le-

ro PFO

gislature reside in the northeast quadrant?

A. At the time they were elected in the spring

of '72 four resided in the northeast quadrant.

Q. Four of the nine Representatives elected

in that district?

\. Yes.

Q. Going back to the northwest, how many re-

sided in the northwest?

A. Well, our map shows two in the northwest.

One actually falls far to the east of that quadrant,

but my quadrant line had to be moved over because of

the lack of population density in the western part

of the county.

Q. That one that lies right along the line

and geographically more in the east but according to

population in the west, does that community of in-

terest in the area where he lives fall generally to

the west of the county or to the east?

A. More to the east of the county.

Q. So that actually would be five in that

community of interest. Is that correct?

[67]

A. Yes.

Q. Now, moving on to the southeast quadrant,

I'll ask you if you have done the summary to reflect

population there.

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Now then, the 153,811 is what you show in

the southeast quadrant. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That is because you comtemplated the

Supreme Court's striking District 42, as well, and

your basic figures were based upon trying to redraft

and alter District 42. is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now then, in that connection the over-all

ethnic makeup of the southeast quadrant is 61 per-

cent white, 36 percent black and 3 percent brown.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, in addition to the southeast quadrant

I'll ask you whether or not the City of Arlington is

included or part of the City of Arlington in the

southeast quadrant there as you have shown it.

A. Yes, it is.

Q. There is a difference, is there not, be-

tween the economic interest and the ethnic makeup

of the south portion of the City of Arlington and

the southeast portion of

[68]

the City of Fort Worth?

A. Oh, definitely. Arlington is a white up-

per middle-class white neighborhood.

Q. Have you done a compilation of the south-

east quadrant, or that portion, at least, of the

southeast quadrant without the City of Arlington

in it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In that connection it is composed primarily

of southeast Fort Worth. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And using that, there's a total of 109,000

people in that quadrant. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

51,378 or 47 percent are white?

That's right.

And 49 percent are black?

Yes.

And four percent are brown. Is that cor-

oOo Pro,r eo

rect?

A. Yes.

Q. And the mean family income is $8,815.00.

Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this is the area that John Dillard |

lives in. Is that not correct. |

A. Yes, John lives in that area. |

[69]

Q. I'll ask you whether or not any State

Representatives were elected from that area in

1972.

A. No, there were not.

Q. I'll ask you whether or not you can recall,

since you have been in politics, and your deposi-

tion will reflect how long, whether or not there

has ever been a State Representative elected from

the southeast portion of Fort Worth.

A. Only one several years ago, and he lived

on the very fringe, the northern edge of his por-

tion of the county.

Q. And the mean family size is larger there

than in any other district. It's 4.04. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now. moving on to the southwest quadrant.

You have done a tabulation of that, 172,420 people

in that quadrant?

A. That's right.

Q. A total white of 87 percent, 6 percent

black and 7 percent brown?

Yes.

And the mean family income is $13,374.00?

That's right.

And the mean family size is 3.74?

Yes, it is.

POoPrPo>,

[70]

Q. Is that the smallest family size of the

various quadrants?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And the highest mean income?

A. That's correct.

Q. How many State Representatives resided in

that quadrant at the time of their election?

A. Three.

Q. So there are three in the southwest quad-

rant, four in the northeast and two in the north-

west?

That's correct.

And zero in the southeast?

That's correct.

Q. Have you alsc prepared -- no, excuse me.

Plaintiff's Exhibit i(c) prime, which was a sum=

mary of information by census tracts wherein you

took two high-income census tracts and two low-in-

come census tracts and made compilations on the

basis of those?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In that connection would you tell the

Court, and I don't have a copy of that before me--

would you tell the Court what your high-income

figures show as compared to the two low-income

figures?

A. Two high-income tracts, one is 54.02,

which falls in the southwest quadrant of the county,

has a mean ;

> o YS

—

[71]

family income of $26,825.00. In this there are

968 families that have an income between $25,000.00

and $50,000,00, and 223 families with an income of

over $50,000.00. There are only 1,300 families in

all of District 32 with an income of over $50,000.00,

and 223 of them live in this census tract. Their

mean family size is 2.61.

The other high-income census tract is 106.02

with a mean family income of $40,693.00. It is 98

percent white, 31 families with twenty-five to

fifty thousand dollar income, 23 families with

fifth-three thousand and over income. There are

only 96 families living in this census tract. It

is also in the southwest quadrant of the county.

Q. In that connection, before you go on to the

lower income, I think I am getting ahead, and there

is a map later on that demonstrates some of that.

Is that not correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. I'll ask you in connection with your work

in the census information whether or not you have

prepared and caused to be prepared -- incidentally,

# this map was prepared either by you or under your

supervision, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And all the information placed on that map

is supported by exhibits which you have previously

identified and been offered in evidence?

' een ” ~

[72]

A. That's right.

Q. I'll ask you if you caused to be prepared

at my request an overlay which reflects the pre-

cincts wherein there is a black population in ex-

cess of 30 percent.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And I'll ask you if Plaintiff's Exhibit

No. 1(c), Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit No. 1(c)

reflects those census tracts.

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, in addition to those census tracts,

I‘11 ask you whether or not you have prepared and

compiled a statistical summary of information which

relates to not only those census tracts, but the

other census tracts wherein there is significant

black population.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that is Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit

No. 1(c) prime?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, of these census tracts shown in blue,

those are the ones that are the black census tracts?

A. Those are census tracts that have more than

30 percent black population.

Q. Are they marginally 30 percent or is the

percentage significantly greater?

A. Oh, most of them are more than 75 percent

[73]

Q. In that connection how many census tracts

are there in this category?

A. There are 25 census tracts that are more

than 30 percent.

Q. Now, there are 80,336 blacks in the dis-

trict. Is that correct.

A. That's correct.

Q. When I make reference to the district and

Tarrant County, if you please, I make use of the

district smaller than the county, but when we're

talking about after 1968, I'll actually be referring

to District 32, which is less than the county. Any

reference prior to 1970 will be for the county as

a whole. You understand that?

.: a:

Q. In that connection these tabulations are

based on the present district. Is that correct?

A. Yes, District 32

Q. And that's 12 percent black total popula-

tion?

A. That's right.

Q. These 15 census tracts--15 additional cen-

sus tracts where there are between 5 and 30 percent

population. Is that correct?

A. That's ccrrect.

Q. Are those contiguous with or around these

[74]

blue areas, or where are they located?

A. All of them are contiguous with the blue

areas except the three that fall into the smaller

cit.2s, incorporated areas, and the one census

tract that is to the west.

Q. _And in that connection the 13 census

tracts in blue have in excess of 75 percent total

black population. Is that correct.

A. That's correct.

Q. And the mean family income is $6,570.00?

A. That's right.

Q. And the mean family size is 4.04. Is that

correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, in addition to that, I asked you to

prepare, and was there prepared an overlay which re-

flects the brown or Chicano concentration of popula-

tion in Tarrant County.

A. Yes, I did.

). In that connection that overlay is identi-

fied as Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit No. 1(d). Is

that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that shows the census information where

Chicano population is 30 percent or greater in yellow?

[75]

A. Yes, tnat is correct.

Q. With the exception of one green, which is

a combination of yellow and blue, and that signi-

fies one census tract where there is 30 percent

population in both black and brown census tracts?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, in addition to that, did you prepare

a summary of the brown population as it is distri-

buted in District 32?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that has been identified previously

as Piaintiff Escalante's Exhibit 1(d) prime. Is

that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. In that connection there are 40,742 per-

sons of Spanish surname or Spanish ancestry. Is

that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And of that there are 7 census tracts where

there is 30 percent or greater brown density of

population?

A. That is right.

Q. That is the yellow ones. Can you tell the

Court, if you will, briefly what the remaining cen-

sus information or distribution of the brown community

is?

A. Fivty-five census tracts where there are

} more than five and less than thirty percent brown,

ofifty more

[76]

census tracts where there is more than two percent

and less than five percent brown population, so we

have 105 census tracts with more than two percent

and less than thirty percent brown population, and

they are spread throughout the district.

Q. Mrs. Fischer, in that connection back to

your testimony about your summary of economic infor-

mation in District 32, I'll ask you whether or not

you did prepare a summary of economic information

and prepare an overlay which reflects certain eco-

nomic information on the map.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that has been previously identified as

Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit No. 1(e). Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, the overlay that is shown on the map

shows the census tracts wherein the population exceeds

$3,000.00 above the mean family income in a diagonal

and where it is Jess than $3,000.00 below the mean

income of $11,000.00 in a dot. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In that connection, the mean family income

being $11,000.00 this means that the range is in

dots showing a mean family income up to $8,000.00?

A. That's right.

'Q. The white area shows between eight and

[77]

and fourteen thousand dollars.

A. That's right.

Q. And the diagonal area shows from $14,000.00

up in mean family income. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, in addition to that, if you will,

please, go ahead and explain to the Court -- you pre-

viously talked about the two high-income census

tracts that you selected, and you have identified

those as in the southwest quadrant, have you not?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you tell the Court about the low-

income tracts and where they are situated on the

map?

A. Census Tract 11, which is just to the east

of the downtown area, it also happens to have a

population greater than 30 percent black. It has

a mean family income of $4,437.00, a mean family

size of 4.62. There are 382 families who live

here. It is 86 percent black, 10 percent brown

and 4 percent white. There are 29 families who

have less than $1,000.00 a year income, 46 families

with less than $2,000.00 a year income and 5¢

families with less than $3,000.00 a year income.

Census Tract No. 17, which lies immediately

to the south of 11, has a mean family income of

$3,604.00, a mean family size of 4.56. There are

702 families living

[78]

here. It is 95 percent black, one percent brown

and four percent white. There are 105 families with

less than $1,000.00 income, 126 families with less

than $2,000.00 income and 171 families with less

than $3,000.00 income.

Q. In that connection then, the range within

census tracts, as prepared by the Census Bureau, the

range in mean family income in Tarrant County ranges

from $3,604.00 at the bottom and to $40,693.00 at

the top end and that the mean family size ranges

from about 4.56 at the bottom end in the low econo-

mic area up to about 2.61 or smaller, depending on

which of the two higher income tracts. Is that

correct?

A. Yes. One of the high-income tracts we

were unable to get that figure, because the tract

is so small.

Q. I'll ask you, Mrs. Fischer, if you did

cause to be prepared in this connection an exhibit

which reflected the ethnic and economic makeup of

the census tracts wherein each of the State Repre-

sentatives were elected in 1°72?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that is Plaintiff's Exhibit 3(a) --

(I) prime?

A. That's right.

Q. All right, and in that connection, this is

based upon where they registered to vote in 1972?

[79]

A. Yes.

MR. GLADDEN: In the interest of brevity, if

I may make some references to it and lead the wit-

ness a little bit, Your Honor---.

Q. In that connection, Mr. Charles Evans, a

State Representative, lives in a precinct with a

mean family income of $14,000.00. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. It is 96 percent white and 4 percent brown?

A. That's right.

Q. Bill Hilliard lives in a census tract with

$18,288.00 mean family income. It is 99 percent

white and one percent brown. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Bud Sherman lives in a census tract where

the mean family income is $12,737.00. It is 95

percent white and 5 percent brown. Is that cor-

rect?

A. That's right.

Q. Gibson Lewis lives or is registered in

1972 in that northeast nortion of the county in a

census tract where the mean family income was

$17,368.00. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. With 94 percent white and 6 percent black?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tom Schieffer lives in a census tract where

[80]

the mean family income is $14,465.00, and it is

100 percent white?

A. That's right.

Q. Likewise, Joe Spurlock lives in a census

tract of $11,860.00 mean family income, and it's

100 percent white?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. David Finney lives in one that has a mean

family income of $10,432.00. It is 98 percent white

and 2 percent brown?

A. That's right.

Q. Chris Miller lives in a district or cen-

sus tract where the mean family income is $20,948.00.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. It is 96 percent white and 4 percent

brown. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doyle Willis lives in a census tract where

the mean family income is $10,833.00?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it is 94 percent white, 3 percent

brown and 3 percent black. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Doyle Willis is the only member of the pre-

sent

[81]

makeup of the Legislature who lives in a census

tract where there is any significant -- more than

one-half of one percent black population. Is

that correct?

A. That's correct.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: We'!1] pause for a 15-minute

recess.

MR. GLADDEN: Thank you.

(REPORTER'S NOTE: The Court then, at

10:35 o'clock, A.M., December 3, 1973,

recesses until 10:50 o'clock, A.M., the

the same day, at which time it recon-

vened. )

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Would you mind telling us how

many live witnesses you expect, Mr. Gladden?

MR. GLADDEN: This is our last witness, Your

Honor.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Thank you very much.

MR. GLADDEN: With one exception, Mr. Collins

will testify relative to the time spent in prepara-

tion of the case as to attorney's fees.

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. Mrs. Fischer, you had just got through

[82]

testifying about the economics of the census

tract information. I'1] ask you whether or not

you have done some statistical studies relative

to the comparison of black and white voter activity

among selected races in Tarrant County?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. You have previously testified on your

deposition that there has only been three black

candidates for the Democratic nomination for State

Representative in recent modern history. Is that

not correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that during the years, '60 through

'72, that was out of about 106 persons that sought

the Democratic nomination?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, I'll ask you whether or

not you have identified on the map the location of

the residence of each of those three black candi-

dates that have run in recent history.

A. Yes, I have, in small black dots.

Q. They're shown in small black dots?

I'll ask you whether or not each of those re-

Sides in the black community?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. And each of them resides in the economic

overlay that shows mean family income of less than

$8,000.00?

[83]

A. That's correct.

Q. And I'll ask you whether or not you have

summarized the effect of or whether there has been

voter polarization as to those black candidates

against their white opponents?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Now, in that connection I'll ask you, in

doing that, you selected five precincts -- no, ex-

cuse me -- you selected precincts whic? you con-

sidered to be all black. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in 1968 was the first time a black

had run. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that was a person named Charles Grays.

In 1972 there was a James Gaskin and a Bobby Webber,

both who are parties to this lawsuit. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you take those races and make a compari-

son of the votes that each of those persons got in

what you considered to be the total black precincts

versus the rest of the county where there's black

and white and brown mixture?

A. I did

Q. In selecting precincts, did you base it

upon your personal knowledge of the ethnic makeup

by voting

[84]

precincts?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you based it on your testimony as to

your qualifications in the deposition, did you not?

A. That's right.

Q. You prepared a summary of this information,

which has been identified as Plaintiff Escalante's

Exhibit 7(a) prime, through 7(c) prime. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In that connection, turning to Page 2 of

that summary, and in this connection, you're using

17 black precincts in 1968 and 19 in 1972. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In the balance of the district for compari-

son. Would you turn to Page 2, and inthe 1968 race

where Charles Grays was running, he was the black

person in the race. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. In the black precincts he received a total

of 89 percent of the vote. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And his opponent, Mr. Bud Sherman, who is

here in thecourtroom, received 11] percent of the

black vote?

A. That is correct.

[85]

Q. And in the predominantly white, but with

some black and some brown population, Charles Grays

received 8,000 votes or 27 percent. Is that cor-

rect?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Sherman received 47,000 or 73 per-

cent of the white vote. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And by white votes, I'm talking in terms

of predominance rather than total purity. You un-

derstand that, do you not?

A. That's right.

Q. So there was just almost a complete rever-

sal in terms of makeup of the total boxes in that

race?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, then -- and that was a county-wide

race, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, turning to the 1972 Democratic primary

where both Mr. Webber and Mr. Gaskin sought the

nomination, looking first to the Webber race, Mr.

Bobby Webber received in the black precincts, the

19th Precinct, you have identified 77 percent of

the votes. Is that correct.

A. That's correct.

Q. And the combined total of the three white

opponents was less than 2,000 or 23 percent?

[86]

A. That's right.

Q. And looking at the balance of the boxes in

District 32, the records reflect 25 percent of the

vote by Mr. Webber in the white boxes, predominantly

white, and 75 percent by his combined three white

opponents?

A. That's right.

Q. So there again, there was just a reversal

of the trend. It was three-to-one in the black

boxes for Webber, three-to-one against him in the

white boxes?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Looking at the 1972 race in

the Gaskin race, it's not quite as demonstrative

in that. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, Gaskin received 32 percent of the

black vote, while his combined two white opponents

received 68 percent?

A. That's right.

Q. In that connection, Doyle Willis was one

of his opponents. Is that correct?

A. That's true.

Q. And a man who had held public office since

World War II almost continuously in the area?

A. That's right.

Q. And these combined two opponents got 68

[87]

percent in the black community, and in the white

community Gaskin's percentage dropped from 32 to

20 percent?

A. That's right.

Q. And the combined two white opponents went

from 68 to 80?

A. That's right.

Q. And in that connection, however, Mr.

Gaskin was not endorsed or supported by the Black

Precinct Workers Council?

A. That's correct.

Q. The organization Mr. Johnson has identi-

fied himself as chairman cf?

A. That's right.

Q. Now then, Mrs. Fischer, I also asked you

to do a summary or a comparison of voter turnout

in the black precincts, did I not?

A. That is correct.

Q. As compared to the selected white pre-

cincts?

A. That is right.

Q. In that connection, you have selected five

precincts which are almost 100 percent black and

five precincts which are almost 100 percent white.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you in making that selection of these

. precincts to tabulate take into consideration the

[88]

location, the age factor, as well as the mean in-

come factors?

A. I tried to.

Q. In that connection you prepared a summary

which has been identified as Plaintiff Escalante's

Exhibit 8, 9 prime. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Looking to that on Page 2 -- well, Page 2

reflects both general and primary election in 1968.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Page 3 reflects the same information

for 1970, and Page 4 refelcts the same information

for 1972?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in connection with that averaging, I

believe there is testimony here where there is tes-

timony that the voter turnout is significantly less

in the primaries in the black community, as compared

to those voter turnouts in the general election.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, averaging the voter turnout in both

the white and black precincts in the primaries for

those three years, I'll ask you to state whether

or not the percentage is about 33.5 turnout in the

black precincts and 43.5 in the white precincts you

used. Is that correct?

A. 33.3 and 43.3

. 88 os Pye corre

[89]

Q. O.K., 33.3 and 43.3. Projecting that to

using those figures and applying it to a thousand

white and a thousand black votes and projecting

that turnout as to a voter turnout, have you

reached any conclusions as to the ratio of people

who actually arrive at the polls as between black

and whites? .

A. Yes, while this percentage only shows 10

percent, if you had a thousand white voters and a

thousand black voters, if 43 percent of the white

voters went to the polls, that would be 463. If

33 percent of the black voters went to the polls

that would be 333. That means 760 votes actually

cast out of a possible 2,000. That would expand

the vote that the white cast, if. you're talking of

block vote, to about 14 percent instead of 10 per-

cent.

Q. In other words, of a thousand white regis-

tered voters versus a thousand black registered

voters in these precincts, there would be 13 more

white people arrive at the polls than black people,

if you used this voter turnout information you have

developed. Is that correct?

A. There would be 13 more whites for each

hundred voters registered.

Q. Right, using 100 -- excuse me -- using 100.

Of each 100 people that arrived at the polls 13 more’

b would be white than black?

A. That is correct.

SE «.

RIE

[90]

MR. GLADDEN: Excuse me, Your Honor. I seem

to be---.

(PAUSE )

MR. GLADDEN: I'11 do it---.

Q. In connection with Plaintiff's Exhibits

Nos. 16 and 17, those were the newspaper clippings

that have been previously identified. I'1] ask you

if you caused those to be prepared.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And in that connection you selected these

from the archives of both daily newspapers in Fort

Worth?

A. That's right.'

Q. And it was your purpose in selecting them

to select articles which portray and show whether

or not there is racial differences within the Dis-

trict 32 area. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And these articles that you have selected

as shown in Exhibits 16 and 17, are demonstrative

of what they reflect in terms that they are circu-

lated in Tarrant County in the daily newspapers,

were they not? ,

A. That is correct.

Q. And in that connection both of these news-

paper archives are daily newspapers in Fort Worth

and are the only daily newspapers with total circu-

lation in the

[91]

county?

A. That's right.

MR. GLADDEN: At this time we offer Plaintiff

Escalante's Exhibits 16 and 17, not for the purpose

of showing the facts, but for the purposes of show-

ing the racial attitudes of the people in the com-

munity.

MR. YORK: Your Honors, without intending any

disrespect toward those newspapers, we would respect-

fully urge our objection that it is hearsay and

contains conclusions which the writer of the arti-

cles is not shown to be able to draw.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Do you want to be heard from?

MR. GEORGE:- To bring the Court's attention

to former stipulations by the State when this pro-

ceeding waS going on in January of 1972. The State

stipulated the admissibility of similar newspaper

items for all purposes. I don't know what the role

of the stipualtions of the State in the first hear-

ing in this proceeding is, but ™ would suggest that

they are bound by the sitpulation.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Well, we will take the stipu-

lation and the objection under advisement.

[92]

when we study the case.

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. In addition to Plaintiff's Exhibits Nos.

16 and 17, there is in evidence Exhibit No. 19,

which is a clipping which was circulated in Tarrant

County, was it not, by one of the Republican candi-

dates for the Legislature?

A. It's a reproduction of a handbill circu-

lated by a Republican candidate.

Q. And that was circulated in the Tarrant

County area. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And it does reflect a position by that

Republican candidate on the issues of busing. Is

that correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. It suggests his Democratic opponent favors

busing, and he is opposed to it?

A. That's right.

Q. Now then, Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit '

No. 21 is also a series of newspaper clippings. Is

that not correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In that connection this is a series of

articles that were prepared and published in the

Wednesday --

[93]

or in the Fort Worth Star Telegram during the

last week or two. Is that correct?

A. Yes, Wednesday, November 2]st.

Q. And it pertains to -- you said November

21st?

A. November 21st.

Q. It pertains to the community attitudes on

housing and insofar as ethnic living in housing

areas, does it not?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And this was actually taken by you out of

the newspapers. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was circulated in Tarrant County?

A. Yes.

MR. GLADDEN: We tender Plaintiff Escalante's

Exhibit No. 21 in evidence.

MR. YORK: Your Honor, we have the same objec-

tion that we previously urged.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Same ruling.

Q. In that connection, Mrs. Fischer, the Plain-

tiff's Escalante exhibit does relate to some people's

attitude on housing in the Tarrant County area, does

it not?

A. Oh, yes, it does.

Q. Have you picked out just very briefly one

or two instances or examples of what this newspaper

quotes

[94]

people as saying as to their attitudes on ethnic

housing?

A. Yes, I have a couple of examples. One is

concerning Arlington where the Planning Department

in Arlington is quoted as saying: "Negroes have

the most obstacles to overcome," and they were

talking about the availability of housing in Arling-

ton. It went on to say, “Arlington has a very smal]

black population. It is a ghetto-type population,"

and they pointed out there is, you know, evidence

of what the city did for the area before the Civil

Rights Act. It had a dilapidated school at one end

of the street, and when the Civil Rights Act was in

process of going through, they ran and built a small

swimming pool, not as large as many white families

have in their own back yard, at the opposite end of

the street.

Then another of the quotes that came up from

the Watagua residents who said that he wanted to re-

main anonymous. He said, “The reason people like

Watagua is there is no city tax and no Negroes."

The city secretary of Watagua, Mr. Noel Meadows,

spoke of the absence of blacks in the city saying,

"We don't discourage them, but then you wouldn't

say we encouraged Africanos to live in the city

either."

This is two I have picked out. There are many

others in the newspaper article that reflects about

the same thing.

[95]

JUDGE JUSTICE: What was that term, Afri-

canos?

THE WITNESS: Africanos.

Q. Incidentally, Mr. Meadows' wife was a dele-

gate to the National Convention for George Wallace,

was she not?

A. Yes, she was.

Q. And she's City Manager of the City of

Watagua in Tarrant County?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that is one of the areas up in the

north portion of the county where there is no show-

ing of any ethnic population. Is that correct?

A. That rrect.

MR. GLADDEN: At this time, Your Honor, we

would like to tender Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibits

18(a) through (i), Xerox copies of a series of these

slate cards. We would like to tender the originals

to the Court so the Court can see the manner instead

of the fact that they were all put on one Xerox

page, we would like to tender those to the Court.

They have been previously, of course, identified

and shown to the State.

JUDGE JUSTICE: Is there objection?

MR. YORK: No, Your Honor.

[96]

JUDGE JUSTICE: They will be received in

evidence.

MR. GLADDEN: At this time, Your Honor, we

would like to ask Mrs. Fischer---.

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. Mrs. Fischer, in connection with the pre-

paration of this map, I'll ask you whether or not

you have done some work in an effort to attempt to

suggest to the Court how lines can be drawn in Tar-

rant County so as to be representative of both the

ethnic and economic, as well as the political make-

up of the district.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And is that an overlay identified as

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1(f)?

A. That's correct.

MR. MARTINEZ: Your Honor?

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. MARTINEZ: We believe he's going to go in-

to the plan at this time, and we would object to any

evidence along that line.

MR. GLADDEN: Please the Court, the reason for

going into the exhibit, there are two reasons. Num-

ber one is we feel like it is imperative that we

demonstrate to the Court that a plan can be

(97]

presented to the Court which would satisfy the

constitutional inequities that we say exist, that

we can demonstrate to the Court that the ethnic and

economic makeup of our district is such that it

can be constitutionally satisfied by drawing nine

lines. That is the first primary thing.

MR. MARTINEZ: Your Honor---.

JUDGE JUSTICE: One moment.

(REPORTER'S NOTE: Court here confer out

of the hearing and presence of the court

reporter. )

JUDGE GOLDBERG: What is your objection?

MR. MARTINEZ: I believe she can testify to

that without presenting the plan.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: I don't understand he is of-

fering this exhibit as a plan that in any event

bears the imprimatur of any party. He simply wants

to establish, for whatever good it may be, that

there is a plan that could satisfy what Mr. Gladden

says iS a constitutional right of the Plaintiffs

and Intervenors in this case. I don't think he

needs a chart to show this. I agree with you that

he could ask it in question form, but for some

reason he

[98]

thinks he must get it in graphic form. I think

everyone has been told to present plans sealed.

Isn't that correct, Judge?

JUDGE JUSTICE: No, those who were not actual

parties to the litigation were to submit sealed

plans.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: Oh, I see.

I think we'll admit it only for feasibility,

and I want you to understand that is the only thing

it will be considered for. There is a plan where-

by your people could be satisfied -- I mean whether

or not it has to be done or the Constitution re-

quires more or less is not going to be solved neces-

sarily by this document.

MR. GLADDEN: This is correct, Your Honor, and

we will file with the Court -- it is my understand-

ing that the order directed non-parties to file

sealed plans. There was no reference made as to

whether or not the parties would be afforded an op-

portunity to present plans or not. We will file

with the Court a plan, but at this point in time

we would like to offer this evidence to demon-

strate the economic and ethnic makeup for the pur-

pose of showing a plan could have been devised by

the Texas Legislature and wherein these consti-

[99]

tutional inequities could have been satisfied.

BY MR. GLADDEN:

Q. Now, in that connection, you have prepared

a plan, have you not? You have drawn lines?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And that is Plaintiff Escalante's Exhibit

1(f)?

A. That's correct.

Q. In that connection, I'l] ask you whether

or not you have identified these by census tracts.

A. Yes, I have

Q. Now then, I'll ask you whether or not in

that connection you have developed a summary of the

population, the economic and ethnic makeup of each

of these subdistricts, I guess you would call them,

at the present time, of District 32, showing the

economic, ethnic and mean family size and other

pertinent information?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And that is shown in Plaintiff Escalante's

txnibit 1(g) prime. Is that correct.

[100]

A. That's correct.

MR. GLADDEN: All right, we offer in evidence

1(g), which is the census tract information or the

census definition of the lines shown on the map,

as well as 1(g) prime, which is the economic and

ethnic summaries of the breakdown.

Q. Looking to 1(g) prime, I'll ask you whether

or not you show these districts -- and if you can

identify them to the Court as you go through --

and you have got them marked down there as Box 32-1

through 9. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. On No. 1, and it's difficult to see, but

that is the portion in the center of the map. Is

that correct?

A. Yes, that's the inner city of Fort Worth.

Q. All right, and would you tell the Court the

makeup of that?

A. There's 74,614 in population. It‘s 28 per-

cent white, 50 percent black, 22 percent brown. The

mean family size is 4.6. The mean family income is

$6,604.00.

Q. Now, turning to District 2, and rather than

run through these, the Court has copies of these.

A. All right.

Q. It's District 32-2. Is that portion to

the immediate right and down, the immediate east

and south. Is

100

[101]

that correct?

A. That is the southeast portion of a county.

There is presently a high population of black. It

is an area where the black population is growing and

moving into as they move out of the inner city.

Q. In that connection, each of the three

black candidates who sought public office live in

either one or two. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the median or mean family income is

a little bit higher in two than one. Is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Even though there is ethnic makeup, blacks

in the community, then mean family income is more

than the center city income?

A. That's correct.

Q. Both of these districts pertain or deal

with the southeast portion of the district where

there are not representatives and have been none

for many years?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, 32-3, would you very breifly tell

the Court where that is and the makeup of it?

A. It's to the north and east of 32-2.

MR. GLADDEN: If it please the Court, may I

Stand by the map so that I can point it out to the

101

[102]

Court?

A. It tends to be the eastern suburb of Fort

Werth and a portion of Arlington and Richland Hills.

Q. In that connection the mean family income

is $13,000.00 and there are no appreciable blacks

or browns in that district. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Further in that connection, the City of

Arlington has a population over 100,000 people. . Is

that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In order to draw a district of 75,000, it

was necessary to take part of that population out?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. District 32-4 is what?

A. That is part of Arlington that is together.

I might add part of the part that we took out of

Arlington into 3 have smaller incorporated cities.

That's not all Arlington so that 32-4 is Arlington

proper.

Q. I see, and that has a 75,117 population,

which is just almost on the money in terms of num-

bers of people. Is that correct? Y

A. That's correct. 7

Q. And the mean family income is $11,784.00,

and there is a small black population in that dis-

trict. Is

—

102

[103]

that correct?

A. Very small, only one percent.

Q. And this is actually in Grand Prairie.

Is that not correct, that part of Grand Priarie in

Tarrant County?

A. That's correct.

Q. No. 32-5, would you tell the Court a little

bit about 32-5?

A. 32-5 is the mid cities area. We call it

the white suburban, average age arour’ “*, engineers,

school teachers, semi-professional people.

Q. That's the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area. Is

that correct?

A. That's correct, near the new airport.

Q. And in that connection it is 97 percent

white andihas a mean family income of $12,330.00?

A. That's correct.

Q. Would you tell the Court about 32-6?

A. 32-6 is the old northeast side of Tarrant

County. It has one or two small incorporated cities,

Haltom City and Watague in it. It's mainly an older

community of working people.

Q. And it has a mean family income of $9,183.00.

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

103

[104]

Q. Now, 32-7

A. 32-7 has part of North Fort Worth, a lit-

tle bit close to the center of the business area,

several incorporated small cities, a blue-collar

district with a mean income of $9,165.00.

Q. And it is 92 percent white. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, 32-8.

A. 32-8 is known as the Ridglea or west side

of Fort Worth. It has mostly very high income popu-

lation, a very young population.

Q. In that connection the mean family income

of that district is $16,785.00. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it has a family size of 3.6?

A. The smallest of any of the districts.

Q. In that connection I believe you told me

the number of families in excess of $50,000.00 mean

family income, as that district relates to the rest

of the county, do you have that?

A. I can't quote the figure, but is is over

half of the 1,300 families living in that district

that have an income over $50,000.00.

Q. And now, going on to 32-9.

Q. Yes. Now, this again, is just the out-

lying

104

™

also afford

[105]

areas of Fort Worth on the west and south and the

old T.C.U. area. It, again, a fairly high income

with $12,831.00 and it is 95 percent white.

Q. Mrs. Fischer, you have testified previously

by deposition have you not?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And in that connection you did apprise the

Cour t of your qualifications and your awareness of

all the information you have testified here today?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or

not this suggestion on these lines would satisfy

and would demonstrate and would afford peenle of

ethnic minorities and economic minorities in Dis-

trict 32 of a better opportunity to effectively

participate in their representative form of Govern-

ment?

A. Yes, I have an opinion. I think the single-

menber districts would definitely help them. I

think this plan or these lines at least assure them

that they could effectively work and support and

elect at least one black representative and have a

great influence over the direction in which legis-

lation goes and certainly the way they would vote

on legislation after elected.

Q. In addition to that, both from the ethnic

standpoint and the economic standpoint, would it

105

[106]

the poor people in District 32 an opportunity to

more effectively participate in the governmental

process?

A. It certainly should.

Q. And by the same token, the extremely

wealthy would be afforded a better opportunity

than perhaps they now have in terms of responsi-

bility, at least, to one person?

A. That's right.

MR. GLADDEN: We offer Mrs. Fischer's deposi-

tion in evidence, Your Honor, and with that the

Plaintiff will pass the witness.

JUDGE JUDTICE: It will be received in evi-

dence.

MR. MARTINEZ: George Martinez of the firm

Martinez & Solis, for Gaskin, et al.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MARTINEZ:

Q. Mrs. Fischer, did you do a summary of

Tract 3, which is mostly Precinct 50?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. That is the one that is designated as

combined black-brown area?

A. Yes, it was.

[107]

Q. Can you give me the voter behavior on

the black candidates in that area?

A. Now, census tract -- I have census tract

breakdown. You want the voter behavior of Precinct

50?

Q. Census Tract 3, basically Precinct 50,

either one will do.

A. And voter breakdown?

Q. How did the black candidates do in that

area?

A. I do not have Precinct 50, as such. They

were combined with all the other black precincts.

I know from experience that the black candidates

always come out with at least 75 percent margin.

Q. In that area?

A. In that area.

Q. And that is a combined black-brown area?

A. Yes, it is. It is one of the precincts

that I used in the compilations I made on the can-

didates.

Q. Do you have Mexican-American statistics |

on voter turnout?

A. No, it is not that clear-cut evidence in

Tarrant County. There are no precincts that fall--

that have high enough concentration of browns in

Tarrant County to actually measure the voter

turnout.

bi ~ Q. That's your opinion?

[108]

A. That's my opinion.

Q. Do you have any opinion as to the voting

turnouts on Mexican-Americans at all based on your

own experience?

A. Oh, the voter turnout is approximately the

same as that of blacks from my experience. It's

not as easy to find polarization in the brown vote

as the black votes.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to why the voter

turnout is so low?

A. Yes, I have an opinion.

Q. Would you---?

A. Well, I spent a lot of time walking pre-

cincts and registering voters, as well as campaign-

ing with voters, mostly in the black-brown, low-

income precincts, and in all three, but particularly

in the black-brown, the language barrier in the brown

precincts. The other is the feeling that their

vote isn't going to make much difference, that it

really doesn't count that much, and it is an ef-

fort they don't feel very rewarded for having made.

Q. Did you indicate you had experience work-

ing in the Arlington area, or is that just a quote

you got out of the paper?

A. I live in Arlington. I have run for poli-

tical office in Arlington.

| [109]

Q. Would you say the browns are treated the

same as the blacks in Arlington?

A. No, there's no housing discrimination of

browns in Arlington.

Q. When you did your feasibility study for

this "non-plan" did you take into account the

browns?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In doing it, did you attempt to maximize

the strengths of their voting pockets?

A. Yes, I did, particularly in District 1

where the majority of browns live. In fact, our

brown client helped me to maximize the brown vot-

ing strength in that district.

Q. In your opinion do you think it would

have been possible to cut two districts instead of

one to maximize black-brown strenghts?

A. Oh, you can cut them. If you make two

districts with 50 or 60 percent black-brown--!

think a white person would be the ultimate choice

in those districts. Let me give you an example.

In Precinct 1 in Tarrant County, which is just

north of the courthouse -- it is heavily black with

quite a few browns. It's the census tract that has

96 percent black and brown population. Every two

years a white runs, a black runs and a brown man

runs, and the voter participation of the black and

brown drop off so in the

a 109

[110]

runoff that the white man always get elected. I

think if you draw a single-member district line

with very, very close margin in the black and

brown, inevitably a white will end up representing

them. :

Q. Wouldn't you say that's the responsibility

of the candidate?

A. Of the candidate? I would say that in

Precinct 1 the candidate certainly isn't responsive

to the constituents in Precinct 1.

Q. I'm not talking about the office holder.

I'm talking about the people that are running.

A. I have seen some very hard races run in

Precinct 1 and lost by my brown friends and black

friends. It's very hard to get those votes out

and particularly in a runoff and particularly where

there's been some polarization between the two

~jups in the primary.

MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you.

Pass the witness.

MR. KORBEL: I have a couple of questions,

Your Honor.

110

[111]

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. KORBEL:

Q. I'm George Korbel, appearing for the

original Plaintiffs Bernal, et al, and the Inter-

venors Moreno, et al.

Now, you have been liberally qualified as an

expert on Fort Worth politics from reading your

deposition. :

In your opinion has there been a history of

racial discrimination in Tarrant County which has

touched the rights of Mexican-Americans and black

minorities to participate in the Democratic pro-

cess?

A. Yes, I would say there has in a very

subtle way.

Q. And does this existence of past discrimina-

tion preclude the effective participation of Mexican-

Americans and blacks in the elective system?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the use of the multi-member district

in conjunction with the majority place system

operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength

of racial or political elements of the voting

population of Tarrant

[112]

County?

MR. YORK: Your Honor, Counsel, of course,

. is reading from the Supreme Court's language. I

don't believe this witness has been shown to be

qualified to pass on the ultimate conclusions of

law to be made in the case, and we object to it.

MR. KORBEL: That's all I have, Your Honor.

JUDGE GOLDBERG: We will take the objection

under advisement, as previously ruled on the other

questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. YORK:

Q. Mrs. Fischer, you have worked long and

hard on the preparation of this exhibit and on the

various other statist:ical data which you have ga-

thered, have you not?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Been busy on it for several months?

A. Yes.

Q. You would expect that anybody who wanted

to run, and particularly the members of the present

Tarrant County delegation who, if they were told

this month, the next month or the month after,

that they would have to run in

112

[113]

single-member districts in Tarrant County, they

would likewise have to study up on what those

single-member districts would consist of in terms

of what kinds of voters, what kinds of income, et

cetera, et cetera, would they not?

A. I would assume they would.

Q. And that would be a not insubstantial job,

considering the time allowed, would it not?

A. I don't believe that they would need the

detailed breakdown we had to present to the Court.

From my political knowledge, and I assume any can-

didate or officeholder in Tarrant County has at

least as much as I do and many of them more, I

could look at those suggested lines and know which

district I would run best in without going to a

census tract or voting precinct, and I think most

of them could. I don't think it would require them

a great deal of time to decide where to move to get

elected.

Q. Would you seriously contend that the mem-

bers of the delegation know as much about the situa-

tion statistically and so on in Tarrant County as

you do at this moment?

A. There's some of them that I am sure do.

I feel that there are some that do not, but then

I don't want to pass on their qualifications.

Q. O.K. You would agree that there would be

substantially more work or at least more work,

however you

113

aa . a

ret

[114]

want to characterize it, for them to run in single-

member districts from that standpoint than there

would if they were to run in the district as it is

now constituted?

A. Oh, no. They could take their election

returns from the last two campaigns they have run

and simply pick out the area that they run best in

and could run a much easier campaign than running

county-wide.

Q. You believe they wouldn't have to devote

any time to studying the new districts? That it

would be minimal or none?

A. Practically none.

Q. Or to study the ethnic makeup and the

makeup as far as income is concerned in their new

district?

A. I would think it would take a very small

amount of study time on their part. Most of them

have lived in Tarrant County all their lives, and

they should have a pretty good general knowledge

of it.

Q. And if the individual members of the Legis-

lature would differ from your view on that point,

I suppose you would have to concede that they would

know best how much whork they would think they

would have to do?

A. I certainly would. As I said, I wouldn't

want to pass on the qualifications to make that

judgment.

Q. You are aware that the constituticnal con-

vention in thie ctata handas ta 1-------- a

[115]

Yes

In Austin?

That's correct.

Requiring hopefully the attendance of al]

the present members of the Legislature?

A. That's right.

Q. I'm sure you view that as a laudible pur-

pose, a job that needs to be done and needs to be

done well?

on,rno }>

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Fully attended by the delegations from all

of our counties?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the over-all Tarrant County break-

down between browns, blacks and Anglos or white?

A. It is 82 percent, 12 percent black and 6

percent brown. Now, this is District 32.

Q. That's not total Tarrant County?

A. No.

Q. I understand.

A. This is the district our present Represen-

tatives run from.

Q. You made a statement in reply to one of Mr.

Gladden's questions at the tail end of his examina-

tion that you felt that a single-member district

Situation would allow the wealthy to perhaps gain

a more direct form of

115

rn we

Sena IPA EN RALLIES LILES

[116]

representation or a more representative form of

representation as well as the poor?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Would it be true then that you would now

believe that those representatives that you might

characterize as living in the wealthier districts,

generally being white, generally being somewhat

wealthy themselves, would your statement about

that lead us to the conclusion that you believe

they are influenced to some degree now by the pre-

sence of minorities in District 32?

A. Oh, I believe, knowing my delegation, that

there are probably one or two of our representatives

that are influenced by the views of the minorities

in Tarrant County. I would not be able to say this

is true of the total delegation.

Q. My point is -- do you understand the point

being if you made the statement that the wealthy

would be better represented in a single-member dis-

trict situation, that must be due to the conclusion

that the wealthy are not getting total representa-

tion now because their supposed representatives are

being swayed somewhat by what the poor think? Is

that right?

A. That could be assumed. I think, if you'll

give me a minute -- if I lived in District 8 and

were an oil man, which is where most of the oil

people in Tarrant

116

pS A

[117]

County live, I might rather have an oi] man or an

oil man's son in Austin than a P.R. firm operator.

That might be the choice they would want to make.

Q. Now, when you answered that question that

way, I assumed that what you meant was as it now

stands those who are white who are representatives,

that you believe somehow they are not giving total

allegiance to the rich, because they are being some-

how swayed by what the poor, the blacks and the

browns think?

A. No, I don't think that is an accurate

assumption. I think that it's more there aren't

any 01] men serving in our delegation, and since

the richest-area in Tarrant County is predominantly

0i] people, that they might get an oil] man to repre-

sent them then.

Q. You say only a couple of the members of

your, what, nine-man delegation, pay much atten-

tion to a min

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.