Appendix — Harris County Commissioners Court v. Moore
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
5 FILED
OCT 21 1974
APPENDIX '=====~=~.
Supreme Court of the United States
OcToBer TerM, 1974
No. 73-1475
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
ET AL.,
Appellants
Vv.
RICHARD E. MOORE, ET AL.,
Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Alphs Low Brie} Co., One Main Plesa, No. 1 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002
Filed April 3, 1974
Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 3, 1974
LIST OF CONTENTS
Docket Entries |
Stipulation of the Parties
Exhibit 10 to the Stipulation
Exhibit 11 to the Stipulation
Deposition Testimony:
County Commissioner Robert Y. Eckels
County Commissioner Tom Bass
County Judge Bill Elliott
County Commissioner Jamie H. Bray
Judgment Order of the District Court
Opinion of the District Court
a eo
_—
CLERK’S DOCKET ENTRIES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Jesy demand dates
DC Form > mms Rew.
CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. 73-H-1033 73-H- ‘
TO BE CARRIED UNDER C.A. 73-H-993 ¢* -H- ‘
we
Three Judge coud
yews v.. Oo wnt mene
RICHARD E. MOORE, J. C. BOLTON,
VERNON G. DOERING, J.W. MAHAN, GENE
ZADOROSKI, and JOHN HOWE BOYWTON, On His Own
Behalf and On Behalf of Bvery Resident
Citizen ef the Former Justice of the Peace
Precinct MOS. 5, 6 & 7 of Harris County,
Texas
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
WILLIAM ELLIOTT, Individ. and as County
of Harris County
B.A. LYONS, Individ. and as a Member of the
Harrie Co. Commissioners Court
For plaintiff .
Virgil #. Barfielé
500 Mouston Bar Center Bldg.
723 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77002 e235
Gene Zaboroski:
C. Anthony Priloux, Jr.
EDDINGTON & PRILOUX
1215 First Wationel Life Bldg.
Houston, Texas 77002 m?
JB 5 mailed Cart
15 4 maled | Mareme!
Baste of Action; Const i fee
lity of state s:atutes
concerning redistrict fees
Injunctive reliet
Action arcse at: Depositions —
73-H-993
7OME Y, lap he
7-13-73
7-20-73
7-25-73 |
7-25-73
7-26-73
8-3-73
8-9-73
6-17-73
8-17-73
6-26-73
9-6-73
9-7-73
Pltf. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT with request for Temporary Restraining
Order, filed. SUMMONS not issued due to no service copies.
SWOONS iasued on Geft. (5 ~ each “issued “Individ. and as member
of Marries County Commissioners’ Court...)
RETURN OF SUMMONS on the following, served 7-24-73;
Robert Eckels, filed.
William Elliots, filed.
£. A. Lyons, filed.
Tom Bass, filed.
. (0V8) ORAL ORDER to consolidate C.A. 73-H-1033 with
C.A. 73-H-993 entered. Case will be carried under
C.A. 73-H-993 and all future pleadings will be filed in
C.A. 73-8-993. Parties ntfd. ra,
RETURN OF SUMMONS on deft. Tom Bass, served 7-25-73, filed.
Pltf. BAIGF, filed.
(JVS) HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR TRO: Testimony of witnesses.
Court denies TR.
RETURN OF SUMMONS on the following, served 6-2-73, filed.:
Jamie Bray.
William Elliott.
Harris County Commissioners Court.
(JRB) ORDER, setting up @ three judge court to afford opportuni
to brief and argue all questions either preliminarily or on —y
trial of the merits, or otherwise, as that Court thinke. Judges
Gesignated: Requesting Judge, Honorable John Vv. Singleton, Jr.,
for the Southern District of Texas; District Judge, Honorable Cari
Bue, for the Southern District of Texas; Circuit Judge, Honorable
Thomas G. Gee, filed. Pa ies mtfd. dw
Plef. (CA 73-2033) PIRST AMEMDEO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND INJUNCTION, filed. supesoms issued on deft. (4).
RETURN OF SUMMONS on the following, served 8-31-73, filed:
Harris County Commissioners Court as an entity
Tom Bass, Harris County Commissioner.
Bill Elliott, County Judge.
Deft. MOTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF THREE-JUDGE PANEL AND MOTION TO
DISMISS, filed. M/D 9-17-73.
=evel
/6/
a
—-—
3
happy...
qo-n- 9S
JOus V. SINGLETON
Piet MOTTON FOR DEFAULT JUDGuENT, filed. N/D 10-15-73 by cle&
Pltfs' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Decleretory Reliet, filed.
to
we AMENDED COMPLAINT for injunctive
° Zabdoroski's FIRST
or} + ccslaratery relief, civil damages and attorney's fees,
led
DEPOS y. fi
DEPOSITION of Judge Bill Elliott, filed.
trios of Sheriff Jack Heard, Major Tom Pickens end Captein
DEPOS
STIPULATION’ between plaintiffs and defts Elliott, Lyons, Eckels,
Bray and Bass, filed. (w/exhibite)
MOTION Cont
until November 6, 1973, filed.
Plaintiff's BRIEF, filed.
Defte' BRIEF in capper of Gutten to Dissolve Three Judge Panel
and Motion to Dismiss °
Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED BRIEP, filed.
DEPOSITION of Blackie Beeley, filed.
Discovery, extending time for discovery,
Plaintiff Zaborski's BRIEF in support of Jurisdiction, filed. 93
/
Z
a
73-H- 998
JOHN V. SINGLETON, gm,
11/7/73
11/12/73
12/18/73
1-30-74
1-30-74 #
2-1-74
261-74
2-4 74
2-8-4 #
2-86-74
3-7-74
4-1-74
JOINT STIPULATION, filed. eX) that ell evidence, including
retrial discovery evidence, t te admitted by the Court in
73-H-993 will also be simultaneously admitted in evidence
in CA 73-H-1033.
DEPOSITION of Jamie H. Bray, filed.
Pltf. Zaboroski's SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION,
filed.
(IVS) (TG) (CoB) 1 Argument of
counsel. Court takes case under isement.
(JV8) (TG)COB) ORDER, filed. Court has jurisdiction; the Texas
statute Article 23514 is facially unconstitutional and the order
of the Commissioners Court of Marris County, Texas, of June 28,
1973, complained of herein iseved pursuant thereto is permanently
enjoined, An opinion of the court will follow. parties atfd. rm.
Defts’ MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND SUPERSEDEAS, filed. 3
(JVS) ORDER, filed, Defts Motion for a stay pending its appeal to
the Supreme Court is denied. Parties ntfd. jab
Defts' Notice of Appeal, filed. (To Supreme Court)
(JV8, TGG, COB) OPINION, filed. Pltfe are entitled to serve the
terms to which they were elected. Insofar only as Article 2351-1/2,
Texas Revised Civil 6tatums mandates otherwise, it is unconstitu- .
tional. Defts' order of January 30, 1973, undertaking to
other persons to pltfs' offices and to prevent pltfse from carrying
out their duties and receiving emoluments of their offices during
the term to which they were elected, is likewise id. Parties
ntfté. jab —,
Certified copy of Order of Supreme Court of the U.S. GRANTING
Appellant's application for Stay of Dist. Court's Order of 1/30/74
Deft's Amended Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court, filed. 3
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, tired. Flagon / thre 77
pending further order of the Supreme Court, rec'd 6 filed. 4 ~
gyn 3 [fe]
J72
as
5
wy
CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A, 738-993 TO Bs caRnIED wen c.a. 73-80-9939 73-H- |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Jury demand date:
JOHN V. SINGLETON, 3
BLACKIE MEELET 910 Houston Ber Blég.
Bouston, Texas wy
vs
RARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIOWERS COURT AS AN
WILLIAM EULIOT?. Individually ané as County
Judge of Barris County:
JAMIE BRAY, Individually end ae a aeaber of:
che Barris County Commissioners .
TOM BASS, Individually and as « menber of
Barris County Commissionere Court.
Vor defendant :
JB. 5 mailed Cert F-23-7) G, t, & eb
; esei~ 3 °
IB 6 mailed Marebel
Basis of Action: Consti tee
73-H- 1033 Hage: fox.
7-23-73-+-Pltf. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, filed. Summons not issued pending re-
ceipt of edditional service copy end Marshal's service fors.
swewnms {seved on deft. (4).
(JVS) ORAL ORDER to consolidate C.A. 73-8-1033 with
C.A. 73-H-993 entered. Case will be carried under
C.A. 73-8-993 and all future pleadings will be filed
in C.A, 73-H-993. Parties atfd, rm.
MAKE ALL FUTURE ENTRIES IN C.A. 73-8-993
7
I8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD £. MOORE, ET. AL.
vs CIVIL ACTION mos.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER COURT, 73-H-993 and 73-H-1033
aT. AL.
“ss «= =
> ef ee @ eee ee @
GLERK'§ CERTIFECATE
I, V. BAILEY THOMAS, Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, do hereby certify
that the following original exhibits were introduced in evidence
upon the trial of the above styled and numbered case:
PLAINTIFFS‘
SQUIBIT WO; 1 (Small Map of new Precincts and old Precints);
OEPENDANTS ‘
EXHIBIT NO; 1 (Smail map of Harris County; Plan #4 - Moore Plan);
EXUIBITS WITH STIPULATION: (Page 215 of Record) ;
mos. 7, 8, and 9 (Large Maps; mounted on cardboard);
and the following ORIGINAL DEPOSITIONS: WALTER H. RANKIN,
ROBERT Y. ECKELS,
TOM BASS,
BLACKI£ NEELEY (Copy),
JUDGE BILL ELLIOTT,
SHERIFF JACK HEARD, ET.AL.,
BLACKIE NEELEY (Original),
and JAMIE BH. BRAY;
and that the same are transmitted herewith as part of the record on
appeel of said case in the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
TO CERTIFY WHICH, witness my hand and the Seal of said Court
at Houston, in said District, this 2nd day
of April, 1974,
Vv. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
me Tj oo
¥. iss,
Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE
United States District Court
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD E. MOORE, ET AL., Plaintiffs
Vv.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
ET AL., Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO. 73-H-993
(CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 73-H-1033)
STIPULATION
COME NOW RICHARD E. MOORE, J. C. BOLTON,
VERNON G. DOERING, J. W. MAHAN, JOHN HOWE
BOYNTON, GENE ZABOROSKI, and BLACKIE
NEELEY, Plaintiffs in the above styled cause, and COUN-
TY JUDGE WILLIAM ELLIOTT, COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS E. A. LYONS, ROBERT ECKELS, JAMIE
BRAY and TOM BASS, individually and collectively as
the Commissioners Court of Harris County, Texas, De-
fendants in the above styled cause, and both the Plain-
tiffs and the Defendants acting by and through their
respective undersigned attorneys of record, agree together
that the following stipulations are true:
1. That all Plaintiffs and al] Defendants are residents
or domicillarys of Harris County, Texas.
2. That Plaintiff RICHARD E. MOORE, at the gen-
eral election in the State of Texas in November of 1972,
was duly elected Constable of Precinct No. 7 of Harris
9
County, Texas, the term of said office beginning January,
1, 1973, and ending December 31, 1976. That the said
RICHARD E. MOORE was duly sworn in to serve as
Constable of Precinct No. 7 of Harris County, Texas, on
January 1, 1973, and served in that capacity through
June 30, 1973. That the Defendants acting as the Com-
missioners Court of Harris County, Texas, on June 28,
1973, passed an Order redistricting said County’s Justice
of the Peace and Constable precincts, effective July 1,
1973, the intended effect of which Order was to abolish
the theretofore existing office of Constable of Precinct
No. 7 as then geopraphically located and to re-locate said
Constable precinct elsewhere within the County, the
further effect of which was, by operation of law, to re-
move the said RICHARD E. MOORE from his said
office.
3. That Plaintiff J. C. BOLTON, at the general elec-
tion in the State of Texas in November of 1972, was
duly elected Constable of Precinct No. 5 of Harris County,
Texas, the term of said office beginning January 1, 1973,
and ending December 31, 1976. That the said J. C.
BOLTON was duly sworn in to serve as Constable of
Precinct No. 5 of Harris County, Texas, on January 1,
1973, and served in that capacity through June 30, 1973.
That the Defendants acting as the Commissioners Court
of Harris County, Texas, on June 28, 1973, passed an
Order redistricting said County's Justice of the Peace and
Constable precincts, effective July 1, 1973, the intended
effect of which Order was to abolish the theretofore ex-
isting office of Constable of Precinct No. 5 as then
geopraphically located and to re-locate said Constable pre-
cinct elsewhere within the County, the further effect of
which was, by operation of law, to remove the said J. C.
BOLTON from his said office.
10
4. That Plaintiff VERNON G. DOERING, at the
general election in the State of Texas in November of
1970, was duly elected Justice of the Peace of Precinct
No. 7 of Harris County, Texas, the term of said office
beginning January 1, 1971, and ending December 31,
1974. That the said VERNON G. DOERING was duly
sworn in to serve as Justice of the Peace of Precinct
No. 7 of Harris County, Texas, on January 1, 1971, and
served in that capacity through June 30, 1973. That the
Defendants acting as the Commissioners Court of Harris
County, Texas, on June 28, 1973, passed an Order re-
districting said County’s Justice of the Peace and Con-
stable precincts, effective July 1, 1973, the intended effect
of which Order was to abolish the theretofore existing
office of Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 7 as then
geopraphically located and to re-locate said Justice of
the Peace precinct elsewhere within the County, the
further effect of which was, by operation of law, to remove
the said VERNON G. DOERING from his said office.
5. That Plaintiff J. W. MAHAN, at the general elec-
tion in the State of Texas in November of 1970, was
duly elected Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 5 of
Harris County, Texas, the term of said office beginning
January 1, 1971, and ending December 31, 1974. That
the said J. W. MAHAN was duly sworn in to serve as
Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 5 of Harris County,
Texas, on January 1, 1971, and served in that capacity
through June 30, 1973. That the Defendants acting as the
Commissioners Court of Harris County, Texas, on June
28, 1973, passed an Order redistricting said County’s
Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts, effective
July 1, 1973, the intended effect of which Order was
to abolish the theretofore existing office of Justice of the
11
Peace of Precinct No. 5 as then geographically located
and to re-locate said Justice of the Peace precinct else-
where within the County, the further effect of which was
to remove the said J. W. MAHAN from his said office.
6. That Plaintiff GENE ZABOROSKI, at the gen-
eral election in the State of Texas in November of 1970,
was duly elected Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 6
of Harris County, Texas, the term of said office be-
ginning January 1, 1971, and ending December 31,
1974. That the said GENE ZABOROSKI was duly sworn
in to serve as Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 6 of
Harris County, Texas, on January 1, 1971, aad served
in that capacity through June 30, 1973. That the Defend-
ants acting as the Commissioners Court of Harris County,
Texas, on June 28, 1973, passed an Order redistricting
said County’s Justice of the Peace and Constable pre-
cincts, effective July 1, 1973, the intended effect of which
Order was to abolish the theretofore existing office of
Constable of Precinct No. 6 as then geographisally located
and to re-locate said Justice of the Peace precinct else-
where within the County, the further effect of which was,
by operation of law, to remove the said GENE ZAB-
OROSKI from his said office.
7. That the Orders passed by the Commissioners Court
of Harris County, Texas, certified copies of which are
submitted herewith as Exhibits as indicated below, and
which are pertinent to this cause, are as follows:
Exhibit 1—Order passed June 7, 1973, redistricting
the County Commissioner precincts of Harris County,
Texas.
Exhibit 2—Order passed June 28, 1973, redistricting
the Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts of
Harris County, Texas,
12
Exhibit 3—Order passed June 28, 1973, creating the
office of Justice of the Peace, Place 2, in each of
the Justice of the Peace Precincts of Harris County,
Texas, numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Exhibit 4—Order passed June 28, 1973, appointing
various persons to fiill various Justice of the Peace
and Constable offices pursuant to the newly dis-
tricted Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts.
Exhibit 5—Order passed July 5, 1973, appointing a
person to fill the office of the Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 8, Postion 1.
Exhibit 6—Order passed July 5, 1973, appointing a
person to fill the office of Justice of the Peace, Pre-
cinct 4, Position 1.
8. That the map exhibit marked Exhibit 7 and sub-
mitted herewith, which depicts the Justice of the Peace
and Constable precinct lines as they existed prior to the
redistricting of said precincts, which took effect July 1,
1973, accurately and truly reflects such precinct lines.
9. That said Exhibit 7 further accurately and truly
reffects the population and square mileage area of each
of the said Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts
shown thereon as they existed prior to the redistricting
of said precincts which took effect on July 1, 1973.
10. That the map exhibit marked Exhibit 8 and sub-
mitted herewith, which depicts the Justice of the Peace
and Constable precinct lines as they now exist after the
redistricting of said precincts, which took effect July 1,
1973, accurately and truly reflects such precinct lines.
11. That said Exhibit 8 further accurately and truly
reflects the population and square mileage area of the
said Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts shown
13
thereon as they now exist after the redistricting of said
precincts, which took effect on July 1, 1973.
12. That the map exhibit marked Exhibit 9 and sub-
mitted herewith, which depicts the County Commissioner
precinct lines as they now exist after the redistricting of
said precincts, which took effect June 7, 1973, accurately
and truly reflects such precinct lines.
13. That said Exhibit 9 further accurately and truly
reflects the population of each of the said County Com-
missioner precincts shown thereon as they now exist after
the redistricting of said precincts, which took effect on
June 7, 1973.
14. The population counts, by census tracts, of each
of the Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts, with
a breakdown of the Black and Spanish surname popula-
tion within each such tract, before redistricting of said
precincts, which took effect July 1, 1973, as reflected
by Exhibit 10, are accurate and true.
15. The population counts, by census tracts, of each of
the Justice of the Peace and Constable precincts, with a
breakdown of the Black and Spanish surname population
within each such tract, after redistricting of said pre
cincts, which took effect July 1, 1973, as reflected by
Exhibit 11, are accurate and true.
16. Commissioner Tom Bass was appointed Chairman
of a nine-man committee to study redistricting formed
by the Harris County Commissioners Court on March
13, 1973.
17. The redistricting plan adopted by the Harris
County Commissionrs Court combined a portion of old
Justice of the Peace Precinct No. 6 with Justice of the
14
Peace Precincts Nos. 4, 5 and 7 and a portion of 3 to
form the new Justice of the Peace Precinct No. 4.
18. The Redistricting Plan adopted by the Harris
County Commissioners Court was adopted by the follow-
ing vote: in favor, Commissioners Tom Bass, Jamie
Bray and Judge William Elliott; opposed, Commissioner
E. A. Lyons and Commissioner Robert Eckels.
19. That Plaintiff JOHN HOWE BOYNTON lives
within the boundaries of the former Justice of the
Peace Precinct No. 7 of Harris County, Texas, and of
the new Justice of the Peace Precinct No. 4 of Harris
‘County, Texas. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23
(b)(2), Plaintiff, JOHN HOWE BOYNTON, purports
to bring this suit on his own behalf and in the behalf of
every resident citizen similarly situated in the former
Justice of the Peace Precinct No. 7 of Harris County,
Texas. Plaintiff would purport that the class of persons
involved is so numerous that joinder of all members
of the purported class is impracticable, and would further
purport that a common question of law and fact exists
as to all members of the purported class. Pleiuuff would
further purport that the Defendants have acted on grounds
generally applicable to the purported class, making ap-
propriate final injunctive relief to the purported class as
a whole which would benefit the purported class as a
whole. Defendants do not in any way concede that this
is an appropriate or proper class action.
20. That Plaintiff RICHARD E. MOORE filed suit
under Cause No. 948,328, styled Richard E. Moore v.
Harris County Commissioners Court, Et. Al., in the
164th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,
seeking temporary and permanent relief from the redis-
15
tricting Order which took effect July 1, 1973, and a tem-
porary injunction was denied said Plaintiff on June 29,
1973. Thereafter, said Plaintiff took a Non-Suit therein.
21. The numbers of Constables and Deputy Constables
within each Constable precinct, both before and after
the redistricting of said precincts, which took effect July
1, 1973, as reflected in the Affidavit of S. G. Fullerton,
County Auditor of Harris County, Texas, submitted here-
with as Exhibit 12, are accurate and true.
[6]
The foregoing matters are all stipulated and agreed
to by all parties.
The following are matters which were submitted
by the Plaintiff Gene Zaboroski for stipulation and
agreement but which were and are not stipulated
and agreed to by the Defendants:
1. The Harris County Commissioners Court voted to
form a redistricting committee in January of 1973, with
the avowed intent to redistrict the Justice of the Peace
Precincts and Constable Precincts in conformity with the
one man—one vote ruling of the United States Supreme
Court.
2. Commissioner Tom Bass selected the members who
were to make up this committee.
3. This redistricting committee chaired by Commis-
sioner Tom Bass was made up of special interest groups.
4. This redistricting committee considered nine plans,
none of which were adopted.
5. The “Tom Bass’ Redistricting Plan” as adopted
was never considered by the redistricting committee.
16
6. That the “Tom Bass’ Redistricting Plan” as adopted
was not disclosed to Commissioners Eckels or Lyons until
they arrived at the County Commissioners Court meeting
on the morning of June 28, 1973, at which time it was
to be approved.
7. That the nominees to fulfill the newly created Jus-
tice of the Peace Precincts and Constable Precin~.s had
been predetermined in secret sessions and not disclosed
to Commissioners Eckels or Lyons until the nominations
during the meeting on the morning of June 28, 1973.
8. No Republicans were appointed to any of the newly
created or vacant Justice of the Peace positions or Con-
stable positions.
9. Three Justices of the Peace who were appointed
were non-lawyers, to wit: Edd Miller, Bud West, Albert
Lee.
10. Appointee Peavy was Judge Elliott’s assistant and
staff member prior to being appointed as Justice of the
Peace.
11. Shelly Hancock is Ralph Yarborough’s nephew.
12. The majority of newly appointed Justices of the
Peace and Constables were appointed in the geographical
areas that fall within the Precincts of Commissioners Bass
and Bray.
[7]
13. The “Tom Bass’ Redistricting Plan” was adopted
by the Harris County Commissioners Court on July 28,
1973, to take effect July 1, 1973.
14. The vacancy created by the new Justice of the
Peace Precinct No. 6 was filled by Albert Lee, a democrat.
17
15. Commissioner E. A. Lyons and Commissioner
Robert Eckels voted against the “Tom Bass’ Redistricting
Plan” because it did not conform to the purposes of one
man—one vote.
16. The Harris County Commissioners Court did not
check the residency requirements of the persons appointed
to fill the newly created Justices of the Peace and Con-
stables.
17. Racial considerations were deliberately used to set
up color and ethnic precinct lines.
18. That Commissioners Bass, Bray and Judge Elliott
are Democratic office holders; that they are liberal demo-
crats; that their voter support is heavily Black, Mexican
American and Labor.
19. That the primary reason for the redistricting and
the resultant lines of the precinct was to appoint patron-
age individuals whose appointment would constitute a
political benefit to Commissioners Bray, Bass and Judge
Elliott.
20. The entire redistricting committee established by
the Harris County Commissioners Court in January of
1973 was a sham, because Commissioner Bass had already
decided what plan he wanted along with the other Defend-
ants, that he had prepared his plan in a secret mecting to
which Commissioner Lyons and Eckels were not invited.
21. That the entire matter was a conspiracy to favor
racial, minority groups and special interest voter groups
for political advantage.
22. That the entire plan deliberately eliminated any
Republican from appiontment.
18
23. That the lines in what was old Justice of the Peace
Precinct No. 6, and a Republican precinct, is now redis-
tricted so that Gene Zaboroski, or other future Republic
candidates, are now placed in a heavily Democratic pre-
cinct insuring Democratic party candidates continued
election to office.
[8]
24. That the “Tom Bass’ Redistricing Plan” as adopted
deliberately eliminated a “safe Republican” precinct and
created a safe Black and safe Mexican American pre-
cincts, »
25. That the voter records of the last election of each
of the County Commissioners Bass, Bray, and Elliott
indicate that the Blacks, Mexican Americans and Union
votes delivered a heavy majority toward their reelection.
26. That Commissioners Bass, Bray and Judge Elliott
have voted together in partisan matters on the Harris
County Commissioners Court since Commissioner Bass’
election to the Court in 1966.
27. That the selection of the citizens committee to
study redistricting chaired by Commissioner Bass was a
sham in that the Commissioner was stacked six to three
in favor of persons friendly to and politically compatible
with Commissioner Bass.
28. That the redistricting plan adopted by the Harris
County Commissioners Court does not conform to the one
man—one vote rule.
29. That the appointment of non-lawyers, i.e. Albert
Lee, Bud West and Edd Miller negated the Court’s major-
ity statement that one basis for the redistricting was to
put lawyers in as Justice of the Peace to replace non
lawyers.
«es
ot eae
a
ee ee eee
19
30. That the actions of appointing the particular per-
sons newly appointed and changing some office holders to
new areas was purely politically motivated by the Defend-
ants Bass, Elliott, Bray faction of the Harris County Com-
missioners Court.
EDWARD J. LANDRY
Edward J. Landry
Attorney in Charge
for Defendants
202 Harris County Courthouse
Houston, Texas 77002
713-228-8311 Ext. 151
MICHAEL R. DAVIS
Michael R. Davis
Of Counsel
for Defendants
202 Harris County Courthouse
Houston, Texas 77002
713-228-8311 Ext. 151
C. ANTHONY FRILOUX, JR.
C. Anthony Friloux, Jr.
Attorney in Charge
For Plaintiff Gene Zaboroski
1215 First National Life Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-227-4141
GERALD A. WOOLF
Gerald A. Woolf
Of Counsel
For Plaintiff Gene Zaboroski
1215 First National Life Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-227-4141
20
VIRGIL H. BARFIELD
Virgil H. Barfield
Attorney in Charge
For Plaintiffs, Richard E. Moore,
et al.
500 Houston Bar Center Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-225-9257
JOHN G. GILLELAND
John G. Gilleland
Of Counsel
For Plaintiffs, Richard E. Moore,
et al.
500 Houston Bar Center Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-222-6127
DAVID HOLLINGSWORTH
David Hollingsworth
Of Counsel
For Plaintiffs, Richard E. Moore,
et al.
500 Houston Bar Center Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-222-6127
LARRY B. KERFOOT
Larry B. Kerfoot
Attorney in Charge
For Plaintiff Blackie Neeley
910 Houston Bar Center Building
Houston, Texas 77002
713-228-9641
21
Exmeit 10 Te TE STIMULATION
BEFORE REDISTRICTING
JP stable Pct. 1.
202(most)
poy most)
eal
-
ewvweveor Cf
ial
_vunw
vwaevrrovooocoove
“eevreeveeeeveee
~~
bt hers
eounwn
“-*
‘_—-
OnNVaneoewrsenene
.ocnaaee«s
_iwee
. ‘* .
eve
POUND He REN AON UAVS SOSSNSEORYVOM NEE HE NUOUM RYH HE AOVUNAS HUE oew
uN
“*-*.
oO
w
_—
on
. : ee ° e°
POOKY eK SeON OF EON YES OOS OSAP eENOUYNSOOYV HK COON SAQU CeSO4UNSFAVOr FON Vee
we “
Grenaneoer 4~fO NUN
waaeupanpeaeentnt Tae
Rue -
eden tel vuuwew nw asa ondl
VM Ve VV et YVUOYVVaAVOYUVTsEDeUOevoeearu MUSUNNBONSSSD
@ueteiegeae tae eee e eee eese eee ees 8 . *-* . . .
ee
rer ot
2s Cec reas Mik
;
BEFORE REDISTRICTING ISTRICTING
JP & Constable, Pct. #1 ;
Page -Z- ; a anf
" ‘AN :
CENSUS TRACT TOTAL PoP mel OSH A ; CERSUS TRACT TOTAL POP. BLACK tt
421 3,698 16 4 201 5.4 : $41 (most) 1,445 j= «**5- eee
422 16,486 3 ol 648 3.9 $42 ° 997 44.7
423 17,616 1,760 10.0 1,593 9.0 $43 89200 tweet eee
424 12,590 1 : $49 4.4
ta Mo es
6 7 4 ‘ ,
433 6°359 289 a's 298 a? WABrccccocrecescccese §©6WMESD 248,095 25.4
434 880 36 4.1 14 1.6 .
435 $,937 1 --- 220 3.7
436 10,457 15 of 916 8.8
437 6 18 12.3 32 21.9
438 7,795 $3 ; 416 $.3
349 3,866 7 126 3.3
440 16,661 24 1 672 4.0
441 3,847 --- --- 75 1.9
442 12,995 35 3 4.5
443 23,189 - --* 1,911 4.4
444 18,175 7 +s ry 2.7
44s 12,873 ? | 446 3.5
446 1,046 9 --- 882 4.2
447 13,844 10 1 476 3.4
448 215 5 2.3 12.1
449(1/2) 90 6 6.7 ll 11.7
450 185 3 1.6 28 15.1
451 (part) 68 5 6.6 12 16.8 ;
1 126 56 44.4 131 74.0 4
$02 3,211 2,562 79.8 569 17.7 i
503 13,777 986 7.2 9,633 9 3
504 4, 1,678 41.0 1,778 43.4 |
50S 6,220 1,863 50.0 2,583 41.5 i
506 9,901 rT) 5 1,724 17.4 :
$07 8,603 39 5 1,379 16.0
508 - §,925 1,561 26.3 3,207 al :
509 12,867 2,204 17.1 2,974 23.1 :
$10 6,865 6,263 91.2 137 2.0 *
$11 6,951 1 3 1,228 17.7
$12 7,617 12 2 89 10.4
$13 3,501 371 10.6 $34 1S.3
514 7,709 4,451 $7.7 790 10.2
$15 8,023 s 11.5 1,711 21.3
516 7,778 227 2.9 2,245 28.9
$17 13,449 260 1.9 86 3.6
518 13,561 2,439 18.0 973 7.2
$19 13,602 1,851 13.6 501 3.7
$20 12,975 $,621 43.3 808 6.2
$21 10,253 14 ‘ 1,359 13.3
$22 11,967 e+ 6.4 ;
$23 11,908 26 2 713 6.0 f
524 2,121 1,964 92.6 92 4.3 4
$25 10,659 8,352 78.4 148 1.4 4
526 16,491 113 ‘ 6.0
$27 9,680 --- 559 5.8
$28 2,033 1,288 63.4 89 4.4 ‘
529 4,513 ' 21 Ss 4
530 8,929 4,871 54.6 140 1.6 .
$31 13,744 7,773 56. 520 3.8
$32 12,736 6 +--+ 704 $.5
$39(part) 44g 35 7.8 1.8
r) 2,102 wees o-e- 121 $.8
a
a ese
24 | 25
BEFORE REDISTRICTING / BEFORE REDISTRICTING
JP 4&4 Constable Pcts. #2
P table Pets. #2 Page -2-
CENSUS TRACT TOTAL POP. BLACK -_. SPANISH 1 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL POP. BLACK
202(part) 1,633 153 9.4 618 $0.1 431 6,952 8
209 (most) 656 1S 2.3 149 22.7 432 2,345 6
210 11,981 10,619 88.6 855 7.1 - wal
211 10,516 1,395 13.3 433 4.1 co ee
212 9,563 cece eee 777 8.1 TOTAL 427,724 85,292
213 $,311 203 3.8 197 3.7
214 (1/2) 1,793 307 17.1 392 21.9
2 .
308 (1/2, So 3,512 735 20.9 291 8.3
309 (1/2, So 7,292 $9 . oan 1,316 18.0
310 (part) 25% 1,580 . 3 2 794 50.2
312 (part) 25% 1,981 8 4 1,478 74.6
313 9,801 33 3 1,387 14.2
314 (most) 754 5,716 2,053 35.9 $16 9.8
318 19,071 9,787 $1.3 1,850 9.7
319 5,786 1s 3 358 6.2
320 15,447 16 | 871 5.6
321 11,704 1,664 14.2 3,524 30.1 ;
322 11,760 4 cess 9 7.8 ;
323 8,408 16 2 799 9.5 :
324 11,900 25 2 421 3.5 :
325 9,213 3 see 1,353 14.7 ;
326 7,729 1 cone $81 7.5 i
327 10,399 5,065 48.7 787 7.3 ;
328 16,144 12,351 76.5 974 6.0 :
329 10,526 10,410 98.9 62 .6 :
3 5,413 $,2 97.1 122 2.3 :
331 1,029 2 1. 9.3
332 6,479 1,683 26.0 610 12.5
333 2,742 19.4 262 9.6
334 (most) 4,169 232 5.6 622 14.9
335 12,921 259 2.0 1,867 14.4
336 253 26 2.1 177 14.1
337 427 67 15.7 $3 12.4
338 2,641 21 s 181 6.9
339 10,017 9,962 99.5 104 1.0
340 7,451 6,834 91.7 56 7)
341 347 73 21.0 5.8
342 1,080 +e cee 161 14.9
343 7,187 $,149 71.6 182 2.1
344 706 1 a 174 10.2
345 6,601 eee coe 245 3.7
346 1,960 eee coe 9.1
347 18,217 10 a 1,170 6.4
348 11,527 28 2 1,965 17.0
349 9,537 6 al 5.5
350 6,877 9 ll 332 3.7
33 4,009 oes “+s 278 6.9
352 68 - oe eee 33.2 ;
356 (1/2) 6,578 5 1 829 12.6
357 (most) 75% 14,198 4 see $72 4.0 :
359 (part) 25% 21s eee eee 94 7.7 ;
370 (1/2) sos 373 1 tsk 37 9.9 :
371 9,490 20 d 403 4.2 $
372 $96 oe wee 21 5.8 ' 3
373 (most) 75% 7,869 22 3 $.2
374. $,472 6 1 192 3.5 3
37s 7” coe ecco 45.9
41s 14,834 56 4 $26 3.5
427 6,118 oo 312 $.1
428 8,476 18 2 145 1.3
429 4,616 15 3 61 1.3
430 3,439 12 3 155 4.5 ;
1
f - NN
'‘Oonwe2euo -
. eecoeeeneeeeeneess
Oo eVenouveoe: : &£e@nrre ee
—
wien ueoern :
26 |
BRFORE REVISTRICTI ‘ a
Original JP 4 Constable "ers _JP_§ CONSTABLE, PCT. #4
:
;
CENSUS T TOTAL. PoP. BLACK i. SPANISH ‘ | CENSUS TRACT TOTAL PoP Bl ACK
;
226 3,014 128 4.2 54 1.8
228 3,281 0 0 82 2.5 ose an’ses r+.
229 1,790 0 i) 219 12.2 224 14°239 4,204
230 18/529 9 0 48s 2.6 i : +44 ow
233 1,596 ‘ 3 29 1.8 bro 3°060 }
234 2'590 4 3 183 7 ; Hott ;
235 35931 2 7 166 4.2 : Ht +H een
236 1,747 0 0 0 0 i HH 1.933 383
237 625 1 2 0 0 : 4 “aes 338
251 1,917 3 2 0 0 ; He ++4 873
282 4 7 0 0 | 247 "332 ene
253 1,063 136 12.8 43 4.0 ; 44 a3
254 80s 0 0 16 2.0 : 249 2.355 2s
255 1,681 20 4.2 0 0 } ; 18°008 Hr
256 “4 10 2.2 0 0 ; a ++} 4
HH 4,032 2,475 $03 PY H 538 "202 :
. , ® ® “-*-
259 6.440 27016 31.3 16 1.2 ; 536 2,304
260 166 1 11.4 0 0 —_—_—
162 arte 3 He} 23) sa7 6,692
. . . TOTALS $1,879 .
263 4,671 4 a 209 4.5 F
264 35366 26.4 1,721 $1.1
265 1,850 121 6.5 281 15.2
267 4.849 19 4 38 a
268 1,791 12 7 0 0
269 6.416 53 ‘* 188 2.5
270 4.611 31 ” 166 3.6
271 35170 5 ‘2 | o3S4 11.2
272 4" 390 805 18.5 299 6.6
273 45026 215 4 396 9.8
set Totals yivtney 0 hn 4 or +t
a ee ee eee
es
28
REPORF_ REDISTRICTING
29
BEFORE REDISTRICTING
Original J.P. and Constable Pct. $ Original J.P. & Constable Pet. 6
CENSUS TRACT TOTAL PoP. SLACK
CENSUS TRACT TOTAL Por. BLACK a SPANISH .
258
541 (part) 482 0 ° 10 2.1
. 449 (.25) (pert) 4s 5
$50 428 e 1.9 0 0 451 (most) 75% 205 4
452 2,422 43
551 1,236 a2 3.4 0 37 9
° ; ‘ 545 4,492 0
552 1,192 1s 1.5 0 99
553 2,734 HH +H a
. 309 11.5 ‘
u aa aoe 396 a
554 43s 3 : 0
Totels § —s-_-8, 805 296
557 460 203 44.1 0
Totals 6,966 583 4.4 4 0.6
SS a eR Re RS ew eS ea Pe ve Se we el et, OWED over bee ~ Ral
al
“
ad
“
eoSSoltu
BEFORE REDISTRICTING
30
Original J.P. and Constable
CENSUS TRACT
$37
$38
539 (most)
7s
$55
$56
$58
$59
Totals
TOTAL POP.
1,283
941
Pet.
?
BLACK + —s_ SPANISH A...
22 1.7 0 0
173 8.7 14 5.7
105 7.8 24 1.8
242 25.7 0 0
1 a 36 2.1
2 a 35 1.4
393 18.1 72 3.3
938 7.8 281 2.3
31
BRPORE REDISTRICTING
Original J. P. and Constable Pct. 8
CEXSUS TRACT
758
352 (most)
35
370 €1/2)
$08
Totals
TOTAL POP. BLACK Ap
2 0 0
11,445 5 0
0 0
14,403 5 0.0
6,578 5 0.1
4,733 2 0.0
4,302 1 9.0
3,646 1 0.0
12,820 1 0.0
8 0 0
131 0 0
991 0 0
760 17 2.2
5,740 906 5.8
6,791 ‘ 0.1
540 0 0.0
6,263 7 0.1
2,268 27 1.2
373 1 2.8
61,998 992. 1.2
= F
. -
te _e oe ne ne
—
“sovnesvo Ww
COnutCovwccooew ~vw So evouwr
>
.
~
32
GANIIT ft Te THE STIPULAT IO
AFTER REDISTRICTING
JP & Constable Pet. 1
Census Tract
Totels
Total Pop.
—~—-wVoe COUN enuUn~
—
_~aenvuovvew
“eeeetuununee
ereeenroseen
Tote! Pop. Black
87s 20
11,981 10,619
10,516 39
9,56 coe
$,3511 203
3,586 614
5,750 eece
15,447 16
11,760 «
8,408 16
11,900 25
7,729 1
1,706 1
6,601 eese
1,970 ecco
9,537 6
8,877 9
4,009 ease
274 cece
9,490 20
$96 eoee
ry 0
Totals 145, Tr 9s
‘ Spanish
2.3 199
as. sss
13.3 433
ecco 777
3.8 197
17.1 784
soe 182
| 871
ecee 951
2 799
2 423
ecce 581
i 174
ooee 245
cece 180
1 $22
0.) 332
ecee 278
lee 36
0,2 403
cece 21
=
nN
uw
* ef . *_. * . .
eonenwrrs
- nn
evuorvrvetvurves
. . *--* . *F
vnwenyvrvnuves
_—
weurnvv
“eee
t
34 35
JP & Constables Pct. 3 (After) P Pet. 4 (after)
Total Pop. Black Spanish :
Census Tract Total Blacks ’ Spanish ’ Consus Tract Totel Pop. > «alien ionene
Language ~~ i
220 6,904 219 3.2 $66 8.2
215 16,983 9,080 $3.5 1,159 6.8 221 2.478 eee os 245 9.9
224 14,239 4,204 29.5 1,150 8.1 222 6,444 271 4.2 1,317 20.4
228 15,844 10,742 67.8 932 5.9 223 12,251 49 2,914 23.8
2 3,014 128 4.2 s4 1.8 240 ; 4 coe .
227 5,818 ‘ 1 344 5.9 241 3,821 5 a 243 6.4
228 3,281 0 «++ 82 2.5 242 $ one ese eee ---
4 gs + - = 219 12.2 243 1,733 335 19.3 --- ---
230 18,529 | 48s 2.6 244 1,901 238 12.5 ss 2.9
231 6, Beene 75 1.1 245 4, 38 8 71 1.6
233 1,596 ‘ 3 29 1.8 246 1,499 873 $8.2 68 4.5
234 2,590 . 3 183 7.1 248 415 1 . 28 6.7
235 3,931 2 ol 166 4.2 249 2,355 2s 1.1 89 3.8
236 1,747 @. cece 0 nae 338 "458 oan - ese eee
247 625 1 2 0 o-- 251 1.°37 3 0.2 --- “--
238 2,560 0 8 +++. 105 4.1 2 11,967 rs eee 770 5.4
239 5,490 77 1.4 611 11.1 523 11; 908 26 0.2 713 6.0
247 332 | $3 16.0 $24 2,121 1,964 92.6 92 4.
252 $58 ‘4 -7 0 +--- $25 10,659 8,352 78.4 148 1.4
253 1,063 136 12.8 43 4.0 $29 4.513 0.1 21 .
233 1,681 ha 4 see err a og “20 38
’ . ta) --- 56. e
256 445 10 2.2 0 oe = en ~ = 704 5.5
257 s78 1 0.2 0 --- $33 10,695 14 0.1 270 2.5
258 4,632 2,745 $9.3 2s .s $34 1/734 e 24 1.4
239 6,440 2,016 31.3 76 1.2 535 . i “4 coo coe
260 1 19 11.4 0 eee $36 2 304 -<oee -o7- 137 $.9
261 1,814 25 1.4 36 2.9 $37 1,283 22 2.& --- coe
262 837 17 2.0 297 34.7 $38 1,994 173 8.7 114 5.7
263 4,671 ‘ 0.2 209 4.5 $39 ; 140 7.8 1,8
ao 3.508 ons 36.8 0.738 $1.1 27102 eoce eee 121 +8
’ ° 81 15.2 = --- .
266 43997 7 6 Ct«CSsy! ose a} parson na 139 3.1
267 4,849 19 4 3s 8 54a 2 i | --- ---
268 1,791 12 @.7 = e+ 20 — 549 396 41 10.4 18 4.8
269 6,416 $3 0.8 iss 2.5 428 s 1.9 eco =
270 4,611 31 0.7 166 3.6 $31 42 3.4 o*- eee
271 3,170 3 : 334 11.2 $52 1,191 18 1.$ coo ae
272 4,390 80S 18.3 299 6.8. ss3 2,7 309 11.3 31 3.1
373 4,026 21s. 396 8 386 43s 3 7 eee --
274 , 2 0.1 oe+- ++. SSS 941 242 28.7 eco oe
27s 0 “<<< -=-- --- $56 1,731 . 36 2.1
Totals TEx3S— wa “Ww. wer ss, 387 480 a | --- vr
$s8 2,508 2 :
Totals rer ae Et = 4b
J P & Constable Pct S$
(After)
Total Pop.
Black J
17 0.1
8 0.1
2 —
91 0.6
63 0.4
16 0.4
31 0.2
1,760 ° 10.0
1s 0.1
38 0.3
6 0.1
5 -o-
18 0.2
1s 0.3
12 0.3
a 0.1
6 0.3
289 4.5
3% 4.1
1 -<-
15 0.1
18 12.3
5 0.7
7 0.2
24 0.1
35 0.3
a eve
7 “oe
7 0.1
7 eos
10 0.1
s 2.
12 6.7
3 1.6
18 6.6
43 1.8
1,288 63.4
997 44.7
9 24.3
53 13.5
$,188 1.5
aa.
16,315.
[ea eceua ea =
Vite eOunususGte
Nr ew eOO eve Geo
nN
ereuvVr@ur earner
“eee eee
a)
Suusece4e@vuvvw
=
Vrernueune
- | ilandieet
Oo) Ve euour
.
ee tt Le tt
‘
@is 4«
a
.
io
37
JP & Constable Pct. 6 (After)
Census Tract Totel Pop.
122 4,627
123 2,042
201 10,834
202 6,532
203 13,497
204 4,167
205 16,235
206 9,231
301 10,545
302 $,813
303 3,581
309 9,723
310 6.
311 9,356
312 7,923
313 9,801
319 5,786
321 11,704
325 9,213
$01 126
$02 3,211
$03 13,777
soe. 5.925
Totals 179,971
—
~
.
NUEVUSONeNuUrKOuveenw oa
eowor~
“vane
a oo
eoocoocoves
w
a
. e oo
eS eVviC@euaeuce
-ONONK HNO eaNOOUK 2 Oud
+ tea | ese Ne
een eeoo
.
LP § Constable Pet. 7 (After) iP ple Pct. 8 (After)
‘ Census Tract Total Pop. Black - oa Spanish
Census Trect Total Pop. Rieck 1 Spenish = $e Langues
Language
124 4,822 965 82.2 122 2.5
304 ‘: 14/033 98.1 140 1.0 ° 347 18,217 10 0.1 1,170
305 11,318 11,210 99. 87 8 348 11,827 28 0.2 1.
Hd 12°539 13950 +H 300 3 354 otis : coe ie
o 1.7 ree ee “*- -—**- “7
308 : 1,470 20.9 2 8.3 35 14,403 5 --- 651
14. 7,621 2,737 35.9 688 9.8 386 13,155 9 0.1 1,659
3is . 5,391 70.4 302 3.9 357 18,931 6 0.0 763
HH $ 2,825 51.0 244 4.4 358 4, 1 0.0 193
31 m5,484 11,078 71. 923 6.0 359 4,061 1 0.0 376
sie 19,071 9,787 $1.3 1,850 9.7 360 12,820 1 4.0 362
327 10,399 $,065 48.7 s 7.3 %1 -- ++: see
16,144 12,351 76.5 974 6.0 362 131 -- -° oeeee
329 10, $26 10,410 98.9 62 6 363 991 -° --- 29
330 $,413 $,257 97.1 122 2.3 760 17 2.2
331 1,029 1. 96 9.3 36S 5,740 960 15.8
332 6,479 1,683 26.0 810 12.5 6,791 4 | 478
333 2,742 $32 19.4 262 9.6 367 $40 “- --- 32
334 5,559 309s«S.6 14.9 368 6,263 7 0.1 145
335 12,921 2390 2.0 1,867 146.4 369 2,268 27 1. 117
337 427 67 15.7 12.4 373 10,492 30 0.3 $41
538 2,641 22 0.8 181 6.9 374 5.472 6 0.1 192 3.5
AH cath oisse 9? 6 oe
er "347 oe . pe Totals 149,863 1,084 7 10,826
342 1,000 q§ case oes 161 14.9
343 7,187 5,149 71.6 152 2.1
14 1008 23 9.3 473 $.3
tins re tor woe er ose CSE
Total Pop........epeebyeee ( 7H, U2
Spanish Language... 172,345
© Black. ......e-eeee 20.1
% Sp. Language.......... 9.9
40
[5]
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ROBERT Y. ECKELS
Q. For the record, please state your name.
A. Robert Y. Eckels.
Q. Mr. Eckels, you are a Commissioner of Harris
County?
A. Precinct 3.
Q. Precinct 3. I am Virgil Barfield, I am with Mr.
John Gilleland, we represent the plaintiffs in this cause.
Now, then, I have a few questions I want to ask you in
regard to a redistricting plan that went into effect in
June, 1973. You were a Commissioner of Harris County
at that time, were you not?
A. I was.
Q. Mr. Eckels, were you familiar with a committee
formed early in 1973 for the purposes of redistricting?
A. I was.
Q. Did you have any vote in the forming of or the
appointment of that committee?
[6]
Q. That will be fine. What was the purpose of this
committee?
A. The purpose submitted to the Court was to comply
with the one man, one vote rule, and to equalize the
precincts of constables and J.P.’s and County
[7]
Q. Based on this committee, or the constitution of
this committee, is it a fair statement to say there were
A ee ee Ce
41
members of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
the Black community, the Latin-American community, the
women in the community, the constables and the justices
of the peace of the community?
A. Yes, in my opinion.
Q. In your personal opinion, would vou constitute,
or would you say it is a special interest group consti-
tuting this committee?
A. I think the special interest groups were represented.
I felt like the composition of it was stacked toward the
motivation that I felt like ultimately surfaced in the
formation of the committee. Off the record.
(At this time there was a brief discussion off
the record, after which
* * *
[8]
Q. Are you familiar with the plan called the Bill
Williams Plan, or a Plan 9?
A. Only in that he presented a plan.
Q. Mr. Bill Williams?
A. Yes. ,
Q. Do you know whether or not this was the plan
that was submitted by the committee to the Harris
County Commissioners Court for approval?
A. I don’t recall which plan was presented to the
Court, as such, there were so many changes. I know that
in my inquiry, the first time the plan of this phase was
presented, and it was held back and then coming back and
forth, and then in the final presentation, the lines were
changed by Commissioner Bass without consultation with
anyone.
42
Q. I see. Then the ultimate plan that was adopted,
voted on, on June 28—I believe, 1973?
A. Yes.
[9]
Bass himself, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes, and different from any other plan presented
by anyone else.
Q. I see. Let me ask you, how did you vote on the
plan presented by Mr. Bass?
A. I voted against it.
Q. Do you know from your own personal knowledge
how any of the other Commissioners voted?
A. There were three votes for it and two votes against
it.
Q. Two votes dissenting, one of them being yours?
A. Mine was a dissenting vote. May we go off the
* *
record?
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of the—of
a purpose of this committee to create a precinct for
Blacks or for Latin-Americans?
A. The only apparent changes were for this purpose
for creating precincts in the Black and Latin-American
areas. They did not, in my judgment, materially affect
the one man, one vote rule. In summary, it was not done
on the basis of a one man, one vote; they did not equalize
the
[10]
oe ie a
43
Q. Based on your opinion as a Commissioner, do you
feel that the redistricting order of June 28th was in
order to create a Black precinct or a Latin-American pre-
cinct, and not for the benefit and convenience of the
citizens of Harris County, Texas?
A. I feel very strongly this is the apparent reason
for it.
(11)
Q. Three justices of the peace. Do you feel that the
change of the boundaries dissolving the Precincts 5, 7
and 4 into one Precinct 4 is for the convenience of the
people?
A. No, I do not.
[12]
Q. Arising out of any conversation or contact with
the committee, was it ever brought to your attention that
the purpose of this or ultimate goal of this committee
was to form a Black precinct?
A. Among other minority interest groups, yes.
Q. Including Latin-Americans?
A. Yes, this was the opinion that appeared more
and more through the course of their meetings.
Q. When the plan came to an ultimate vote before the
Harris County Commissioners Court, was there ever any
mention of the creation of a Black or minority member
of the community for justice of the peace and constable?
A. The Tom Bass Plan, that is the one he conceived
without the committee, but the one that was presented
was the topic of discussions between several of us, that
this was the apparent purpose it did not follow the one
44
man, one vote rule, but did apparently create districts
for special interests and minority groups.
[13]
Q. The Tom Bass Plan, then—let me rephrase the ques-
tion. Was there ever any mention or any recommendations
among the Commissioners Court itself at which you were
present, in regards to districting along these lines?
A. Yes.
Q. Along these lines, meaning for the benefit of a
minority group?
A. There was considerable discussion when it was pre-
sented for approval. The conversation being that its ap
parent purpose was not in its original intention as stated,
which is the one man, one vote rule, and there was strong
argument to try not to get it.
Q. Of the majority of the commission, did they ever
indicate to you in any manner whatsoever this was their
intent?
A. As best I can recall, the strongest allegations that
would have been made to this, when I made the accusa-
tion, “Well, is there anything wrong with that;” outside
of that, I can recall no specific instances.
Q. Excuse me, when you say, “Wa: there anything
wrong with that”—
A. My argument to the proponents of the changes on
[14]
the basis this is strictly on a race and special interest
group.
Q. And their answer to that?
A. “Was there anything wrong with that.”
—— indies a
45
Q. With setting it up for the minority groups?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand. Do you feel that the Tom Bass
Plan that is presently in effect, effectively applies the one
man, one vote rule, which was the ultimate goal of the
committee majority?
A. In no way.
Q. Was there any discussion as to the time element
at which this redistricting plan was to be put into effect?
A. Not until it came to Court for its final time, when
they said it was going to be effective that day, and very
poor judgment, in my thinking, to do it in that fashion.
I was not aware of any immediate changes of this type,
it was my opinion until that day that it wouldn’t be
effective until the first of the year or until the next election.
Q. Then it was your understanding any order to be
entered was to be effective at the next general election,
not shortly after the general election of 1972 at which
time these constables and
[15]
justices of the peace hac just been elected?
A. Yes, I had considered it unconstitutional to move
a man out of office, and it was my understanding from
the incept of this program that it would not be effective
until the election or the first of the year following the
election.
Q. I see. Was this pointed out, or was this point
argued before the full commission?
A. It was disputed at the time the plan was presented.
* *
46
A. The timing of it, that it should not take place un-
til after the next county election.
Q. Would you have any knowledge of whether or not
there was any discussion as to —after the order
[16]
went into effect as to who was going to be appointed to
the new positions, should vacancies exist after the new
order?
A. Yes, there was discussion on the new vacancies. I
was involved in some of it, some of it came to the table
without my knowledge.
Q. Was there any discussion made in regard to the
appointment of a minority to these vacancies?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this before the Harris County Commissioners
Court itself, or the committee, where were these dis-
cussions?
A. In personnel conference of the Court.
Q. For the benefit of myself and others, what is a
personnel conference?
A. Behind closed doors.
*-_ *
Q. Was any indication given that the appointment of
a Black or a minority group to these newly created
vacancies was for the purpose of their re-election at a later
date?
A. Yes.
[17]
Q. Was this in any way the purpose of those voting to
place them in office?
47
A. In my opinion, it was.
Q. In your opinion. Do you feel—in your personal
opinion, do you feel that the installation of a minority
member in those newly created vacancies enhanced their
chances for re-election in the next general election?
A. I would feel it does, yes.
Q. Do you feel that this move in regards to the re-
districting, creation of vacancies, is to enhance—to place
and enhance the chances for re-election to the office of
justice of the peace and constable?
A. Yes.
Questions by Mr. Kerfoot:
Q. I have just one question, Commissioner. We went
through a moment ago about the conversation that oc-
curred in reference to should the order be implemented
immediately or should there be a time lag, so to speak.
Was a portion of that discussion in any way related to
the right of the people to have their vote?
[18]
A. There was considerable discussion on my part on
depriving people of their right to representation more so
than the right to vote. You were taking people out of
office that had been voted in, and in my opinion, had a
contract with the voters, and you were violating this
contract between the elected official and the voters, in
my opinion.
tion of the plan and voting on it, to your knowledge was
there any reason given why, or did any evidence occur
48
why this be done, were there any circumstances that
prevented the Court from having a time lag?
A. The only comments I can recall was that it needed
to be done now, as far away from the county elections
as possible, so the dust could settle and not have contro-
versy—the dust would have
[19]
time to settle before elections. I think in Gene Zaboroski’s
case, as several others, I think there were obvious, be-
cause you had elected officials serving in an area they had
been elected in, they were displaced and people outside
the election appointed to fill the vacancies. Specifically,
my very good friend, Shelly Hancock was appointed to
fill a vacancy that Gene’ Zaboroski, or the justice of the
peace at Tomball—what is his name? Joe Mahan, living
in the area, but they were not appointed to fulfill those
vacancies.
Q. Do you know of any reason why Commissioners
Court could not have implemented a time lag. do you
know of anything standing in the way, to prevent them?
A. I think they should have.
Q. You don’t know of anything that would have pre-
vented them from doing it?
A. I know of no reason why they couldn’t have except
the vote was three to two against it.
[20]
Q. All right, now, as I understand your objection to
the present plan in effect, as adopted by the Commis-
sioners Court on June 28, 1973, with regard to the jus-
tices of the peace and constables, that objection is the
fact that it did not follow the arithmetical exactness of
Be PM ee TE we
49
[21]
the one man, one vote concept?
A. That, plus the gerrymandering of the boundaries
to represent ethnic groups, plus the installation of it at
the time.
x ~ x
Q. And what do you base your objection to that par-
ticular kind of redistricting, as to those two particular
precincts?
A. I don’t think that it is good to isolate a community
in any way, shape or form because of their ethnic posi-
tions in the community. I don’t think you should insulate
a Black community from the total, I don’t think that you
should insulate a Jewish community from the total. I
don’t think it is the way you are going to have people
living together in harmony; I think if you can have a
free flow and working together, then you will.
[22]
Q. Do you not think that in a precinct, and assuming
one of the precincts is predominately Black and one of
the precincts is predominately Brown, to use that color
term very generally, do you not think there is a com-
munity of interest in, say, one particular precinct which
is predominately Black which might be served best by
a justice of the peace who might be appointed or who
might be Black that might be appointed, and of the con-
stable who might be Black who might be appointed?
A. I think you are definitely doing a disservice to that
community, to restrict them in that fashion. I don’t think
that the Black or Brown of an individual would keep
50
any qualified individual from becoming an elected official,
I think you will find in any position, you will find in an
area of balance, that the white people will accept a Black,
and a Black will accept a white or Brown or purple, or
anything else, as long as they are qualified to fulfill that
job, I think you will better serve the needs of the people
by treating them all alike.
[23]
Q. How is that harmful to those people?
A. I didn’t say harmful other than to the extent it
does limit them with the color. I am saying if you were
to design the precincts on a one man, one vote basis, as
to convenience of the community of the locations, other
than just basing it strictly on ethnic purposes, you are
going to have a community that will live together and
try to erase the color line that is now creating so many
problems in the community.
Q. How do you feel, or why do you feel that the pres-
ent redistricting plan is not for the convenience of the
people?
A. Do we have until about 10:00 o'clock?
Q. Yes, sir, if that is what it will take.
(At this time, Counsel Gilleland entered, and
was present for the balance of the deposition,
which continued as follows:
A. Number one, the implementation of the plan at
[24]
the time that it was put in immediately was expensive.
Number two, it was confusing. Number three, it was very
51
disruptive to the process that the justices of the peace
and constables were elected to accomplish. I think that
the plan tore at the roots of various communities, par-
ticularly your rural areas, without any opportunity for
better planning to replace them.
[27]
Q. To summarize your objections to the new redistrict-
ing plan, you stated one, it did not adhere to the one man,
one vote concept, was one objection?
[28]
A. Right.
Q. Two, it was your impression that the ultimate goal
not only of the committee but of the Court as well, was
to form two minority precincts?
A. Well, of the majority of the Court. I object—
Q. The majority.
A. I object to the gerrymandering of the boundaries
on an ethnic basis.
*- * *
A. There are other objections besides those two.
Q. Which I hope im summarizing to take up. Notwith-
standing the fact the one man, one vote concept
[29]
Q. Any other objections? One, it was expensive, two,
confusing, three, disruptive.
A. Yes, and I think it was a breach of the contract of
52
the voters and officials they elected, the timing I think
was grossly unjust.
Q. Would that have required gerrymandering lines in
order to achieve the one man, one vote?
A. When it became obvious the one man, one vote
concept was not the purpose, then it was my feeling we
shouldn't do it at all. You ask did I have a plan, I did
not put a pencil on a map and draw it, no, I said, “No,
what we have is better for the community than what you
are proposing.”
[30]
Q. I see. Let me direct your attention back to the June
28th meeting. How much advance notice did you have
before you actually had to vote on the plan called the
Tom Bass Plan, in effect right now?
A. I believe it was published in the paper. Was
[31]
that after the meeting? I was not aware of it before I
walked into the Court session, and it was published im-
mediately thereafter, somebody showed me some clip-
pings, I don’t know if the day before or day after. I was
not aware of any changes that had gone into that until I
walked into the meeting, and the plan had been changed
so many times.
Q. I see. The final plan that was ultimately voted on,
you had very little time to study, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
53
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONER TOM BASS
(12]
A. Yes. Well, Bill Williams’s Plan was the one we
ended up submitting as the committee proposal.
Q. That, I believe, passed by a five to three majority,
with you abstaining ’
A. Right.
Q. And after the Bill Williams Plan or Plan 9 or Ex-
hibit 9, I believe, shown here was submitted, then slight
alterations were made in the plan prior—
A. That plan was submitted in toto.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. And then additional plans were submitted which
were slightly alternative, some were considerably alterna-
tive, I think two or three additional plans submitted after
that.
Q. Okay, was this by the committee or other persons?
A. No, that was by me.
Q. Okay, but just for the purposes of the record, Plan
9 was the one submitted or voted by the
[13]
committee?
A. Right.
Q. But other alternate plans submitted by yourself or
considered by the Court?
A. Right.
Q. And ultimately the plan, the—
A. The Bass Plan.
Q. Or the exhibit marked No. 2 was the one selected
by the—
54
A. Court, right.
* * *
Q. Which ethnic group predominates, if any does,
within the Tom Bass Plan as it now exists, within Pre-
cinct 6?
A. I don’t think you will find Precinct 6 has one ethnic
group dominating, but I think you will find the Chicano
percentage pretty heavy in that group.
* * *
Q. Precinct 7, would it be a fair statement to state
[14]
that the Blacks would be predominately within that pre-
cinct?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe at the hearings, do you recall any per-
centages quoted?
A. I really hate to say what, they were available, but
pulling it out of the air, I could say seventy-five percent
to twenty-five percent.
Q. Would 62.5 percent sound right?
A. That is probably right, yes.
Q. As generally, as the plan was passed by the Com-
missioners Court on June 28, 1973?
A. Yes.
[15]
Q. At that meeting with Mr. Hernandez, was there
some concern about the Mexican-American population of
that Precinct 6?
A. Oh, yes.
55
Q. Not being adequate or perhaps there were more
either Black, or let’s say Black?
A. That was a meeting that lasted about three hours,
and all kind of ideas were advanced, it would be hard to
summarize, but it would be safe to say they were interested
in Precinct 6.
[16]
Q. Just for the purposes of the record, was Precinct 7,
in your opinion, based so as to provide a precinct, justice
precinct, where Negroes or Blacks could be assured of
continuing in office after an election?
A. Well, if you are asking me is that one of the things
we knew and considered, the answer is yes. If you ask if
that was the primary thing, the answer is no.
Q. No, I am asking you—
A. It was one of the factors considered, yes.
Q. All right, I believe these are your figures on there
(indicating )?
A. Right.
Q. 238,401 population in Precinct 7. With reference to
Precinct 6 as it now exists, could you tell the Court
whether or not the consideration in drawing the boun-
daries of Precinct 6 shown here was so that the Mexican-
American population would, while not being in the ma-
jority, would be predominate within that precinct?
A. As a factor among a community of interest and
regional representation, closer to one man, one vote, many
factors, yes.
Q. You took into consideration one man, one vote?
[17]
A. That was taken into consideration. As a matter of
56
fact, it originally was the major consideration until we got
legal opinion that the justice of the peace precincts were
not bound by the one man, one vote, and for particular
circumstances, we modified that somewhat.
Q. You used the constitutional provisions of the Con-
stitution of the State of Texas as convenience for guide-
lines?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say guidelines for convenience rather
than one man, one vote would be the guideline in drafting,
voting and ultimately redistricting various justice of the
peace precinct lines?
A. There were four or five considerations, I cannot tell
you the most important consideration. I tell you one that
has not been mentioned I thought was very important,
that is at the last Legislative session, they had redrawn
the house and senate districts on census tracts, and cer-
tainly the justice of the peace and constable precincts were
not drawn on census tracts. It is certainly easier for the
voter, for the clerk, handling voting precincts, if you have
the same type of boundaries, or political boundaries. One
of the
(18)
considerations was to draw boundaries on census tracts.
Q. I believe you stated, too, at a public hearing you
gave population—
A. Right, but another consideration was to approach
the one man, one vote, third was to look at possibilities
of minority representation; fourth to provide regional ser-
vices, a lot of factors.
Q. Correct me if I am incorrect, but let me have the
population you wrote on the plan as adopted and marked
57
Exhibit 2, Precinct 7, new Precinct 7, shows 238,401
residents?
Right, those are 1970 census figures.
All right, Precinct 6 reflects 180,101?
Right.
And Precinct 2 reflects 146,054?
Right.
Precinct 8 reflects 149,681?
Right.
And Precinct 3 reflects 170,997?
Right.
Precinct 1 reflects 342,374?
Right.
And Precinct 4 reflects 175,769?
Right.
POPOPOPOPOPOPY
[ #9}
Q. And Precinct 5 reflects 334,844?
A. Right.
Q. Those are the populations as they now exist after
June 23rd?
A. 28th. |
Q. June 28, 1973, as reflected by the 1970 Federal
census, is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Now, then, the one man, one vote rule was not
applied, as is obvious—
A. No, the Court—
Q. — it was brought more in balance, but not applied
strictly?
A. Yes.
58
Q. It is certainly in terms of distance, now, or miles
from the various offices and sub-offices of any precinct,
it is certainly not as convenient for a person residing in
Precinct 4 generally as it would be for Precinct 2 or Pre-
cinct 6, would that be a fair statement, Mr. Bass?
A. As of this particular time, the statement is
[20]
probably fair, yes. As of when this thing is fully imple-
mented, I am not quite sure; for example, one of the
proposals we have already presented and hope to do is in
Acres Homes, which is in Precinct 4, have the justice of
the peace and a facility he doesn’t operate every day of
the week, but he comes and hears about once a week.
[21]
Q. In terms cf square miles, accepting my figuring is
correct, does 515 square miles appear to be approxi-
mately the square miles in Precinct 4?
A. I would take your figures for that, I have no idea.
Q. It would be obvious, then, in square miles Precinct
6 would be less than one-tenth?
A. I wouldn’t quarrel, whether it be one-tenth or one-
fifth, but certainly smaller.
Q. What does it appear to you to be?
A. I don’t know, but if it is one-tenth, it is one-tenth,
certainly it is a lot smaller.
Q. Likewise Precinct 7?
A. Yes.
Q. It is a lot smaller in area than Precinct 4?
A. Right.
Q. The total populations, combined populations of
Precinct 6 and 7, would you add those up, sir?
59
A. About—238,000 and 180,000 would be 418,000,
almost.
(22)
Q. Safe to say 500,000 in round figures?
A. Okay.
Q. So, you have two precincts in downtown Houston?
A. Yes.
Q. Combining Precincts 7 and 6, would the total area
or land area of 7 and 6 be equivalent to Precinct 5, which
has 334,844?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Would it, in your opinion, be equivalent to—Pre-
cinct 6 and 7 be equivalent to Precinct 4 in land area?
A. No.
Q. And—
A. Be more, considerably more population.
Q. Greater than in Precinct 5, it would be approxi-
mately 85,000 more or 90,000 more in Precincts 6 and 7
than in 5?
A. Probably.
[25]
Q. There was no emergency in redistricting?
A. It depends on what is an emergency or overdue.
Q. You were under no legal or judicial mandate to
redistrict?
A. Not at that time.
Q. Is that correct, so this was something that was done
because the majority of he Court felt, in their judgment,
should be done, would that be a fair statement?
A. Yes.
60
[26]
Q. Could there have been a drafting of boundary lines
along census tracts for the J.P. precincts which could have
resulted in less than a ten percent deviation within each
J.P. and constable precinct?
A. Yes.
(27]
Q. To what consideration was given for the conveni-
ence of the people?
A. Oh, I would think this was probably the major cri-
teria. As I said in my publication, as I said in my news-
letter I mailed to the people, the original concept way
back went way back to 1876, and the purpose was con-
venience for the people, to provide regional facilities and
services for
[28]
the people, so when we got through with this thing, we
would have a minimum of sixteen regional facilities in the
county, where at the present time we had eight—or prior
to redistricting we had eight; definitely that was a factor,
probably as important as any single factor.
[30]
Q. I believe when the proposal was made by you or 4
motion made, an opportunity was given to all persons
attending the meeting to discuss the pros and cons or give
their opinions and views, is that correct, as you recall?
A. I am trying to think, that was about the fourth or
fifth time that Joggone thing had come before the Court,
61
even before the Court we had plenty of public comments,
I believe even that last time we had testimony from the
public.
Q. I believe that is correct. State whether or not
(31)
you stated at that meeting, this would give an opportunity
in redistricting to have a J.P. consisting of Blacks?
A. Yes.
Q. And Chicanos, and that—
A. In addition to male and female, right, and white.
Q. But that they may continue in office, giving them
an opportunity to continue in office?
A. I am sure if you have got my statement there, you
probably have it, I don’t remember that particular phrase.
How does it read?
Q. I don’t have that available, I have it on tape, I
didn’t bring the tape.
A. I have statements made, I can look at it, I don’t
recall the exact phrasing at that point in time, so I don't
want to say yes or no. Here is what I said, “We are at-
tempting to make it more reflective of the general public
by filling vacancies with black, brown and white, in addi-
tion to male and female in districts of realistic population
variances containing a community of interests. In short,
we are attempting to yank the JP/contable system from
the depths of ridicule to the position of a vital contributing
part of our judicial system.” I don’t recall
(32)
that statement.
Q. With reference to Precinct 7, in addition to
7
the
other things you outlined, you were aware Precinct 7 lines
62
as they became as of June 28, 1973, a Black would con-
tinue in office as a result of the simple majority?
A. I think it is a safe statement to say | was aware a
person who was not a Black would probably have a more
difficult time getting elected in that district than a Black
PO. Would thet be o tree statement as to Preciact 6
and Chicanos?
A. It is not that clear. An Anglo in Precinct 6 would
have a good chance to win, a white in 7 would have a
difficult time, but 6 is sort of a tossup between Anglo and
Chicano, just on sheer percentages. ‘ss
Q. Would it be a fair statement to say a majority of
the Chicano population is included within Precinct 6?
A. Even that is difficult to say, I think it is safe to say
Precinct 6 has a sizeable segment of Chicano, but when
you think in terms of total percentage of Chicano popula-
tion in Harris County, J doubt it is a majority, although
I don’t know.
(33)
Q. How did you in voting, make a determination that
the office was vacant after your order was entered? ae
A. Okay, in redistricting the J.P. districts—positions
one and two, our interpretation of the law, election law,
meant that everybody would
[34]
run in 1974, but that the people who were elected in
1974, position two would not have to run for four years,
but those in position one would have to run again in
1976 for a four year term, so in every instance we ap-
pointed an incumbent justice of the peace in position two,
"Saves
Re ee ee a a gee ae
63
in effect saying to him, if you are elected in 1974, you
are the first one that gets a four year term, and the new
guy will have to run again after that, and it was just a
matter in a precinct where there was no incumbent—
Q. With reference to Precinct 7, my question is how
did you and the Court make the determination a vacancy
existed?
A. That a vacancy existed?
Q. Yes.
A. Because by redistricting, we created Precinct 7, a
new Precinct 7, there were no incumbents living in that
Q. Okay, and you know this of your own knowledge?
A. Well, within fallibility, this is what we had deter-
mined, yes.
Q. Likewise, now, Precinct 7 which had formerly been
in northwest Harris County, was moved generally to the
southeast portion of the City
[35]
of Houston, is that correct?
A. The district was not, the number was. As a matter
of fact, I had checked on this, I don’t think you will find
it was an informal question. I had a number of informal
meetings with County Attorney Resweber and others, and
one of the questions I asked, because I was concerned, if
I created Precinct 7 in the southeast, is this de facto the
same Precinct 7 that existed in the northwest, would a
person who had been an incumbent in the northwest be
moving into the southeast in the new Precinct 7, be an
incumbent in 7. We were told no, in this instance there
was a definite break in the two districts, this would not
be the case, so as far as I was concerned and the Court
was concerned, that was new district 7, period.
64
C. All right, Precinct 6 was a new district?
A. Right. .
Q. It is your opinion and your interpretation, based
upon the advice you received?
A. Yes.
Q. That all of the new precincts as of July 1st—all the
precincts as of July 1, 1973 were new?
A. Well, they » to new, but the law said that even
[36]
with the new districts, that if an incumbent lived in there,
he had the job, so they weren’t so new in the sense we
are going to be able to fill all the positions, because some
of the positions were automatically filled with incumbents.
Q. That would have been in addition to relying on
what Mr. Resweber stated, that would have been in con-
formity with—
A. He shall continue in office as justice of the peace
and so on.
Q. I will find the right page. Article 2351% (a)—(c),
correct? (b) applies to commissioners?
A. Right.
Q. (a) applies to both, and (c) applies to residence
when they have change of boundaries in justice of the
peace precincts?
A. Right.
Q. So the authority you relied heavily upon and made
your determination upon, Article (c) of 2351%, would
that be correct?
[38]
Q. Was any consideration given by you as a member
65
of the Court to making the redistricting effective as of the
next general election?
A. Yes.
Q. What has—why wasn’t that done?
A. For several reasons. One, and this is something that
is difficult to the average lay person to understand, but I
think we are all aware of it. No matter when the effective
date was made, somebody's terms had to be shortened,
for the very simple reason constables and J.P.s run at
different times and elected for four years, even if we made
it effective at the general election, we would still have
shortened somebody's term. The fact we couldn't have
saved everybody's term for the length they were elected
is really out the window once you decide to redistrict.
[39]
Secondly, I was in favor of the voters having some
chance to evaluate the new officeholders, and the sooner
the effective date was, the more time it was they would
have, the more the voters in 1974 would be able to see
whether that guy was good or wanted somebody else; but
third, probably more important than either of these, once
we made the decision redistricting was needed to provide
regional services, community interests, whatever, once we
decided this be done, doggone it, let’s do it as soon as
practical.
Q. Let me ask one question, I am not getting personal,
but would you tell the record whether or not redistricting
and the establishment of Precinct 7 as it now exists after
the Court’s order, was done as a promise to the Harris
County Council of Organizations to create a J.P. in pre-
cints where Blacks could be appointed and would con-
ceivably be elected?
66
A. I am not sure what you mean by promise.
Q. Let me rephrase the question.
A. Certainly this discussion came up.
Q. Was this a commitment, without being binding, was
this a pledge by you this would be part of
[40]
your consideration for redistricting along the—
A. In the first place, I think my personal reactions to
drawing of a Black or Brown district, my personal
agreement with this as something needed in Harris County,
I have always felt one of the best ways to improve race
relations is give them a piece of the action.
Q. I am in agreement with that.
A. This is personal commitment on my part.
Q. Right.
[41]
Q. Was there any consideration given to other ethnic
groups other than Black and Chicano?
A. Well, I am not sure they could consider them-
selves minority group, but it was generally understood
[42]
Q. And, let’s see, the various Jewish population of the
City of Houston, which is an ethnic minority, when you
take ethnic groups as a whole but generally classed as
Caucasians?
A. I know—and here is a judgment on my part, and I
guess nobody for the Jewish community made a recom-
mendation on this line, I guess— I know I considered
a eee et
ne ee eee ee
67
Jewish a religious rather than ethnic minority, but no
consideration was given to a “Jewish” district.
Q. But prime consideration would have been to Cau-
casian, Black and Chicano or Mexican-American, would
have been prime consideration in drafting? When I say
that would have been consideration, as far as pertains
to raise?
A. Okay.
Q. Is that correct?
A. As far as pertains to race, we only looked at three
distinctions.
[44]
Q. Because under the law more than two existed?
A. Right.
Q. Judge Lee is in office by virtue—
A. Of reappointment, right.
Q. And I believe, could you state to the record
whether or not any of the other three elected officials,
Judge Zaboraski, Judge Mahan or Judge Doering were
reappointed to the position two that was created in the
same order?
A. No, my major decision there, this was just my
feeling, I can’t say for the rest of the Court, I wanted
an attorney in this position, none of those three were
attorneys.
Q. Judge Lee is not?
A. Judge Lee is an attorney.
Q. Is not an attorney.
A. I was told he was. He is not?
Mr. Gilleland: Off the record.
68
(At this time there was a brief discussion off
the record, after which the deposition continues
as follows:
A. He is not an attorney? All right, someone misled
me, but that is not unusual.
Q. Likewise, that would have applied to the constable
offices as well, Constable Bolton,
[46]
A. Let me get myself straight. You represent who?
Q. I represent Mr. Zaboroski.
A. Fine.
Q. You stated that there has been numerous reasons
for redistricting. What would you consider to be the prime
reason for bringing this about?
A. Well, I can only state for myself, because it took
a majority of the Court to vote, so what I say might not
apply at all to what somebody else felt about redistrict-
ing, this would be mine.
I served ten years in Austin, I had seen three redis-
trictings up there, I had seen what I consider the real
disadvantages of the districts that were way off from one
man, one vote, I was a real firm advocate of the Su-
preme Court’s ruling when it came to one man, one
vote. I have been very much aware of the inequities
of the districts in Texas for a long time, and I saw the
deviation from less than 7,000 to more than 1,000,000
in Harris County. I think this probably is as good a
consideration as major, as important a consideration as
[47]
anything, realizing that that ties in directly with pro-
viding services for the citizens.
eet a em
nk OO + Fee Cts ae
ee Se ee ee eee ee ee
69
Q. As I understand your testimony, you say considera-
tion of so-called safe districts for minorities was con-
sidered, was brought up in your considering these dis-
tricts, is that right?
A. Well, it depends on—the term “safe”, when you
Say a district of 62.5 percent Black, okay, I consider
in all probability a Black will get elected or re-elected
there. When you consider a district thirty-five to forty
percent Chicano, I am not sure that is a safe district.
Q. But the reasoning that such a district, with minority
representation being over a majority, such reasoning was
considered by yourself?
A. As part of community interests and services to
the community, you bet.
Q. I believe you night have touched on my next ques-
tion. In what manner did such so-called safe districts
play in your emergency services and community interests?
A. Well, we felt people in Sunnyside and Third Ward
have a lot mere in common and lot more similar problems
and would be provided better service if they had facili-
ties there than if they
[48]
had to come to the downtown courthouse or north Harris
County or southwest Harris County, something like that,
and therefore the district itself was—District 7 itself is de-
signed in the sense of there will be two regional facilities
in that section of the county, and that section of the
county happens to be predominately Black.
Q. I believe you made the statement before that
relationships could be improved if we give them a piece
of the action, that type of reasoning?
A. Yes.
70
Q. This reasoning was applied in creating these dis-
tricts?
A. Yes, that plus the fact when you go to redistrict-
ing, and you are going to draw eight districts, and you
kmow that any statistics you look at, the Black com-
munity makes up roughly twenty-five percent of the
population of the county, that you were leaving yourselves
open to some potential future court action if you didn't
take into consideration Black representation, because
many, many cases have gone to the court and have been
thrown out because minorities were not represented in
redistricting plans that took place previously, so minorities
was a consideration in redistricting, because we have
seen cases where that was not a factor and they were
thrown out.
Q. Now, understanding your reasoning here as far as
minority representation and that theory, let me ask you
how did you arrive at the boundaries described on Ex-
hibit 2?
A. I am not being facetious, when you try to describe
how redistricting boundaries are arirved at, there are in-
numerable factors, race was a factor, but so were all
these other things we talked about, services to the com-
munity, population was a factor, natural boundaries, al-
though it is hard to define natural boundaries, but they
are part of the picture. For example, in Precinct 7, that
particular district runs straight down Mykawa Road all
the way, it is just a feeling that sort of marks the
boundary between one community and another commu-
nity. Well, I am not trying to dodge the question, it is a
question difficult to answer, you have incumbents, you
have people with political ambition, you have all kind of
factors that go into drawing a line.
ee
71
Q. Would it be safe to say race played a more dominant
part than one man, one vote, really, im drawing these
lines?
A. I don’t think so, again I cam’t talk for anyone
but myself. The main reason this plam was submitted
rather than my complete going on with Bill Williams’
Plan, the Bill Williams Plan did the same thing as far
as creating minority districts is concerned, but it was
way, way off on one man, one vote. If my major con-
sideration had been minority consideration, I would have
gone behind the Bill Williams Plan and pushed it as
the committee plan, but since it was off one man, one
vote, I took the unpopular stand of making another
plan, muddying the water more, to get closer to one
man, one vote. You will see District 7 is not a heck of a
lot different under Williams than this one.
* * *
Q. Commissioner Bass, I believe you earlier stated
you spent some ten years in Austin, that was as a mem-
ber of the Legislature, was it not?
A. That’s right.
Q. What was that period of time you served as a
(51)
member of the Legislature?
A. From January, 1963, to Jamuary 1973.
Q. And you were a representative in the House of
Representatives?
A. That’s right.
Q. During that time, did you aot also state that the
Legislature had attempted on three different occasions to
72
redistrict the state, both as to the representatives as well
as to the senators?
A. Right. Well, three broad times, there were some
minor redistricting, more than that where they changed a
few lines, but major overhaul, three times.
Q. As a member of the Legislature yourself, you were
invoived in that redistricting?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were you more involved, say, than the average
member of the Legislature?
A. Yes.
Q. Where you might have been a member of the spe-
cific committee?
A. I was member the last time. I was twice a member
of the Harris County delegation, was running, in effect,
with the majority the Harris County delegation felt should
be done as far as
[52]
redistricting was concerned.
Q. At various times, those particular redistricting at-
tempts by the Legislature were contested in various courts?
A. Right. As a matter of fact, the one drawn the last
time, over my violent opposition, publicly, privately, every
way, was stricken by the courts as being unconstitutional.
Q. That was done by a Federal court, was it not?
A. Right.
Q. So, you had considerable experience, I take it, from
your participation in those redistricting plans for the Leg-
islature, with redistricting?
A. Oh, definitely, and with court decisions concerning
redistricting, plus the fact my fulltime—I am a politician
by accident, a teacher by profession, which profession is
Pi Ss
73
teaching political science at the University of St. Thomas,
I have been very involved in Supreme Court rulings on
redistricting, particularly, starting with Baker vs. Carr.
Q. All right, sir, and are you presently teaching at the
University of St. Thomas?
A. I presently teach an evening class in order to retain
my tenure, so I have a job if I decide
[53]
not to run again or something.
Q. You teach political science?
A. Right.
Q. Do you hold a title there?
A. Yes, Chairman of the Department, and professor.
Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Depart-
ment of Political Science?
A. Four years.
Q. When you came on board the Commissic .ers Court,
you had this extensive background in redistricting, and
you, I take it, were primarily interested, of course, in see-
ing that the county was districted properly, both as to
Commissioners Court as well as justice of the peace and
constable?
A. Right.
Q. Your answer is right?
A. Right.
Q. And I believe you stated that you became a member
of the Commissioners Court January 1, 1973?
A. Right.
Q. And that you were appointed—
A. There were two steps—may I interrupt?
Q. Yes.
A. Two steps, first, Commissioners Court appointed
me as liaison to look into the possibility of
74
[54]
redistricting.
Q. When was that, again?
A. That was the 12th of January.
Q. All right.
A. So, and then when I came back in to recommend
after that—I have the date, I don’t remember exactly
when, I had a recommendation of a nine member com-
mittee, then Commissioners Court appointed that nine
member committee.
Q. Is that the date you don’t recall?
A. Yes, I have the letter here, but I just—12th of
January, they appointed me liaison.
Q. For the specific purpose of looking into redistrict-
ing?
A. Right, and then—if I can find it here. Well, I don’t
have the date at my fingertips, but it would be later, the
latter part of February.
Q. That was a short time after you were appointed
liaison member of the Court for redistricting purposes?
A. Yes. At that point in time, the Court then appointed
—here is the date of the 12th of March, that is when we
were officially organized as a committee on order of the
Court.
Q. On the 12th of January, you were appointed by
[55]
the Court to act as liaison for the purposes of looking into
redistricting?
A. Right.
Q. On the 12th of March, 1973, the Court actually
appointed this committee?
A. Right.
Q. That was a committee of some nine persons?
7S
A. Right.
Q. I believe you were elected chairman com-
mittee? ——
= No, I was appointed chairman by the Court
. There were eight other persons members along wi
you on the committee? =
A. Right.
Q. And in your study, both prior to the time of your
appointment to the chairmanship of that committee and
after the committee had been formed, were you able to
determine the last time that Harris County had been de-
finitively districted as far as justice of the peace and con-
Stables were concerned?
A. The nearest I can find on that is 1876, where they
drew up the constitution, we didn’t originally—
(At this time there was
[56]
a brief discussion off the record, after which the
deposition continues as follows:
A. As far as I can tell, you can overlook something,
but one hundred years ago, sometime in that time would
be, but what research I have done, what research others
presented to me, it has not been done since 1876.
Q. All right.
Mr. Landry: Mr. Gilleland, I believe for the record, we
can stipulate 1876 was the last time it was redistricted?
Mr. Gi"eland: Right.
Mr. Kerfoot: Yes.
Mr. Cox: I guess so,
76
Q. Now, prior to this redistricting on June 28, 1973,
by Commissioners Court, how many precincts were there
in the county?
A. There were eight justice of the peace and constable
precincts. As you know, the law says there can be from
four to eight precincts, so Harris County had eight.
Q. Among those eight precincts, how many justices of
the peace were there actually in office prior to June 28,
1973?
(57}
A. Nine.
Q. And I take it there were two justices of the peace
in one precinct, with one justice of the peace in the other
seven?
A. Right.
Q. Which particular precinct had two?
A. Precinct 1, the precinct that had 1,000,000 plus
people had two justices of the peace, all the rest had one.
Q. All right, now, after the redistricting, how many
J.P.s were provided for by the Court with the new plan?
A. Sixteen provided for and fourteen offices were filled.
Q. All right. I take it the Court will at some time in
the foreseeable future fill the other two?
A. The only delay for their selection is simply getting
housing facilities for the ones we have now, and then we
will fill the other two.
Q. And under the law, of course, one constable is
required and authorized for each of the precincts.
A. That's right, and only one.
[59]
Q. And I believe the Commissioners Court has re-
cently, in connection with redistricting, redistricted the
county as to county commissioner precincts?
77
That is correct.
. And did you all apply the one man, one vote con-
with regard to that body?
Quite definitely. The deviation now is less than one-
half of one percent between the smallest and largest com-
missioners precincts, as of 1970 census figures, which are
the latest figures we have.
Q. When did the Court redistrict the county with re-
gard to commissioners precincts?
A. I think that was probably two or three weeks prior,
two weeks prior to this J.P. one, it
[60]
was all part of the same study, but I think the vote was
two weeks earlier.
Hata
(62)
Q. After the committee was formed on March 12th of
1973, how many times would you say, or can you recall,
that the committee met to consider redistricting of the
J.P. and constable precinct?
A. Given time ahead, | could look it up in detail, I
78
Q. In addition to those three public meetings, did you
all have other meetings?
A. Yes. These other meetings, I don’t mean to imply
[63]
not public, but not publicized in the same sense as the
other three hearings. We had at least three hearings in
the open, Commissioners Court, in which anybody could
come, but not publicized to the same extent as the three
in the Jury Assembly Room.
Q. Did various members of the public attend those?
A. The ones here yes, but not the same extent as the
Q. Were those extensive meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. That is lengthy, annd was there considerable dis-
cussion held?
A. Uh, yes.
Q. Did members of the public participate in these?
A. Definitely. As a matter of fact, it was of sufficient
numbers and intensity that the constable involved and
Sheriff's Department felt it might be good to have some
people around.
Q. For law enforcement purposes?
A. Right.
Q. And during the time that the committee was meet-
ing, were there—was this topic of redistricting of the
J.P.s and constables discussed in the various Commis-
79
until about, I guess, three weeks before we adopted it,
as I recall, I might not be quite accurate. I submitted all
the proposals one week, the next week we voted on Com-
missioners Court, then two weeks later, on J.P.s and con-
stables, which would mean three weeks. During that time
it was discussed in open court, but obviously, eating lunch,
passing in the hall, various Commissioners chit-chatted
about this thing.
Q. During this time, was there not considerable pub-
licity being given to these redistricting plans?
A. Definitely.
Q. In the various newspapers?
A. We made the front pages of both papers.
Q. Houston papers?
A. Right, Houston Post and Houston Chronicle.
(65)
Q. Now, in your opinion, from your study of the
[66]
various plans, was the Williams Plan among the com-
mittee plans, the only plan which could be considered to
have had an ethnic group, as such, either Black or Brown?
A. Not at all.
Q. Carved out as precincts?
A. Not at all.
Q. How many of the others would you say would have
hac Brown or Black precincts, as such?
A. If I am not mistaken, I may be off a little bit, but
not much, every plan, with the exception of the existing
you call minority precincts, including Constable Moore's
plan. .
80
Q. That would be by minorities, you mean Black and/
or Brown precincts?
A. Right.
Q. Would it have been difficult or wouid it have been
an easy task to draw up a plan which would not have
had either a Black and/or a Brown precinct?
A. Well, we could have kept the same districting there,
and those did not have a Black or Brown, but once you
get beyond one district that has one million citizens, you
Start getting the
[67]
districts anywhere near equal, it will be pretty difficult I
would say to have one that does not have a preponder-
ance of one or the other minorities.
* * *
Q. Is it not true you earlier testified consideration
[68]
also was to making the representation of the people in
the various J.P. and constable offices more reflective of
the people by making it possible for not only whites, but
for Blacks and Browns and women?
A. Yes.
Q. To be holders of those various offices?
A. Right, yes, that is true. Of course, another point
that has not been mentioned, again one among many,
I am really concerned and in complete agreement with
the Bar’s opinion that the J.P.s ought to be attorneys, and
another emphasis in filling new positions was to get qual-
ified, bone-fide atiorneys into J.P. positions, to make it a
position of prestige, if at all possible.
Oe ee i ee oe
ocean ae
81
Q. All right, sir. I believe you also stated that the Court
either has or plans to have court facilities in the number
of some sixteen throughout the county?
A. Yes, we are specifically requesting that the J.P.s,
the two J.P.s in a single district, do not initially—well,
hopefully never, but do not initially have the same court
facilities, we want them in separate court facilities.
[74]
Q. With regard to the redistricting plan, I take it the
Court was primarily concerned with satisfying the require-
ments of Section (3) of Article 2351% in regard to J.P.s
and constables, is that not right?
A. This is in the filling of the vacancies, ali that has
to do is filliag vacancies. If it is redistricting, that doesn’t
relate to redistricting. I don’t know what your question is.
Q. I think that answers it. Under Article 2351%2, you
all tried to comply with those requirements regarding fill-
ing of vacancies?
A. Right.
Q. I take it under 2351'%, the redistricting as adopted
by the Court required filling of vacancies as they occurred
by reason of the redistricting with incumbents on a resi-
dential basis?
A. Right.
[76]
Q. All right, sir, so the Court then fully complied with
the requirements of Article 235142?
A. Certainly; as far as I can tell, we did.
Q. To summarize your testimony with regard to the
reasoning and reasons which the Court relied on in the
redistricting plan as now in effect I believe you stated
82
one, and you described it as a real important considera-
tion as far as you yourself was concerned, was drawing
of boundaries on census tracts?
A. Yes.
(77)
Q. All right, then, another consideration was to make
the various precincts more equal in population than they
were under the old existing plan?
A. Right.
Q. Under the old existing plan, there was a variation
from 7,000 to 1,000,000?
A. Less than 7,000 to more than 1,000,000, right.
Q. What is the greatest disparity now?
A. From approximately 145,000 to 345,000, about
200,000 variance.
Q. Another consideration was in your words, to give
minorities a piece of the action?
A. That was another consideration.
Q. And the Court did, in fact, pursuant to that appoint
a Black J.P. and Black constable, did
[78]
it not?
A. That’s right.
Q. In the predominately Black precinct?
A. Right.
Q. Which precinct number is that?
A. 7.
Q. And did the Court also appoint a Mexican-Amer-
ican J.P. and a Mexican-American constable?
A. Right.
eres
—_—
83
Q. In the predominately Mexican-American precinct?
A. Yes.
Q. What precinct number is that?
A. 6. As a matter of fact, two Chicanos there, two
Chicano J.P.s and one Chicano constable.
Q. All right, sir, and another consideration, I believe
you stated, was to provide regional services?
A. Right.
[79]
One other thing, we did appoint—it has nothing to do
with it, but we did appoint a woman to J.P., again ap-
parently for the first time in the history of the county.
There were two women, the second woman’s name I
won't mention, she declined for personal reasons, I talked
to about filling vacancies, one declined, but as far as I
was concerned, there would be two women appointed but
one declined.
Q. As far as you know, is this not the first time a
Black or Mexican-American has been appointed as con-
stable or J.P. in Harris County?
A. As far as I know.
Q. Would it be your opinion in both of these two
[80]
precincts, 6 and 7, that in the respective precincts as rep-
resented by a Black J.P. and Brown J.P., as well as the
Black constable and Brown constable, that the people in
those areas would be better served, law-enforcement-wise,
by people with their own district predominance?
A. This is a personal thing on my part, a lot of people
disagree, but I feel it is a better situation than previously
existed.
84
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF
COUNTY JUDGE BILL ELLIOTT
[6]
Q. Perhaps the question was a little unfair. Let me put
it this way. Had you personally, along with Commissioner
Bray, ever had any personal meetings or conversations
with Mr. Bass prior to his becoming a member of the
Commissioners Court concerning the desire to change
these Justice boundaries and Constable boundaries as
they were ultimately done?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately when did these first conversations
take place?
A. Probably sometime during his campaign, back in
the early
[7]
Q. All right. And have you had an opportunity to
read Commissioner Bass’ deposition under oath?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. Then I can refer to it. I don’t have a copy of
it. If I ask a question and you want to rely back on it, if
you have a copy with you, certainly we can take the time
to do it. I don’t think there will be that much, but I want
to be fair, because I am asking about somebody else’s
statements outside their presence.
Commissioner Bass, as I read his deposition—and I
will state I read it quickly, yesterday evening I received
my copy—stated that one of the purposes, although not
the only purpose, of the ultimate plan as approved by
the Commissioners Court which resulted in the new boun-
dary lines as they are now constituted was to see that, as
he put it, there were safe precincts, both Constables and
wosok ahem rennet
~ ee ee ee
85
Justices, for both Black and Mexican Americans. In other
words, racial and ethnical minorities.
Mr. Landry: Subject, now, to what the deposition ac-
tually reflects with regard to Commissioner Bass, I have
{8}
no objection to what you represent Commissioner Bass
having said in his deposition.
* * *
A. The makeup of the county, I think, is such that io
redraw Justice of the Peace precinct lines, Justice of the
Peace and Constable lines, would be that a somewhat safe
precinct—when you consider the community interest and
the nature of the Black segment of Harris County, it
would be difficult to not draw precinct lines in this regard.
It would be almost a matter of gerrymandering to prevent
such an act.
[9]
part of the political facts of life in our area.
Now, my question is, then, I think perhaps more fairly,
would be directed to you, Judge Elliott, and that is as
you discussed personally with Commissioner Bray and
Commissioner Bass the proposed idea of creating these
new Justice and Constable precincts, was this in fact a
primary consideration given so that when t.. ultimate
lines would be drawn, as they now have been, that there
would be two or three areas where the safe so-called
political havens would be for persons of Black and/or
Mexican-Americans, or other ethnic minorities to be
elected to these positions?
A. That is a very general question, but—
Q. Let me break it down.
86
A. No. 1 just say yes, in the general context. I would
question the use of “as a primary factor.” There were
many factors.
* *« *
Q. What were the factors that you discussed with Com-
missioner Bass that were a predicate, or the basis for, in
fact, the decision to redraft along the lines ultimately
finalized? "
A. I think—not in the order that I will state them, but
as a resuli of action taken by the legislature the
[10]
Justice of the Peace and Constables had gotten their salary
raised and then legislation causing the county to pay a
salary to those that were elected by three or four hundred
people the same as those that were being elected by three
or four hundred thousand. The discrepancy in the size of
the districts populationwise is certainly one of the major
factors. The size, the location of the precincts, even the
matter of availability to the Justice of the Peace and Con-
stables offices. The fact that we did want to increase the
number of offices, which is really maybe the primary fac-
tor, to provide subcourthouse facilities through Harris
County.
* * *
Q. All right. And based on—and I can only base this
on what I have been advised, what I have read, members
of the Court have been quoted as saying in the news
media and talking to the reporters who interviewed them,
that there was little or no question that one also very
primary purpose was to assure these safe districts would
be created.
A. This was a factor.
.
ee ee ee a ee ene Ene Y
eh Nr hee Pens elke Lew
Mle tases roein 2s
87
[11]
Q. I have no recollection of any.
Now, in that regard, was any discussion ever had con-
cerning the drafting of these districts what effet the
Change of the district that Mr. Zaboroski was in, the old
District 6, would have on the Republican voters, with the
growing number of Republicans living in that area, with
whether or not they would have the opportunity to, likely,
elect another Republican Justice in the newly created dis-
trict? Was that considered at all?
A. I would imagine there was some conversation along
this line. I think it is fairly evident from the lines of
Precinct 5 that this seems to be a safe Republican area;
may or may not be.
[12]
that could very well—which would be another area that
could go Republican.
Q. As far as I know, and I ask if your recollection is
consistent with mine, this Precinct, old 6, was the only
one that ever actually sent a Republican to the office of
Justice of the Peace in recent history?
A. I think that is correct.
[13]
Q. All right. Would you let me have the names of any
of the persons appointed who were proposed to the Court
by Commissioners Eckcis or Commissioner Lyons?
A. I think Commissioner Eckels and Commissioner
Lyons had a recommendation in regard to at least one,
but I question whether or not I am at liberty to disclose
that discussion
88
[15]
Q. I think we can leave that area.
Now, one of the apparent factors given by other mem-
bers of the Court, at least as I understand it, was that it
was a desire based on this disparity of salary increase in
an attempt to upgrade the position of Justice of the
Peace, one of the factors that the Court considered, at
least Commissioner Bass said he considered, was the fact
it would be desirable to have a lawyer sit in the positions.
And my question to you would be: Was that in fact a
substantial reason or basis in part for this redistricting,
in order to assure lawyers to accede to the position of
Justice by appointment, rather than non-lawyers?
A. Again, this was a factor. It goes back. But the pri-
mary factor was the establishing of the subcourthouses.
But it naturally followed that I have been a personal ad-
vocate of lawyers being judges. In two or three of my
campaigns
[16]
this has been an issue.
[18]
Q. In other words, the responsibility for and the ulti-
mate selection of these committee members was done by
Commi sioner Bass?
A. That is correct.
* - *
Q. All right. Now, let me ask you a couple of political
questions. I am asking you this as an office holder of
many years. Commissioner Bass in his commissioner pre-
cinct was primarily supported by, of course, a liberal
voting majority, isn’t that true, composed of in large part
Black, Mexican-Americans and Union voters?
A. In his wing of the election?
ws & atin
.
A ee Ee me AO eee mw
ee ae Peel
wee dn or
ee
89
[19]
Q. Yes.
A. His record is such that this is the usual area that he
gets major support from.
Y. Right. Justice Republican would seek the conserva-
tive on the other side.
A. There are a number of conservatives that support
Commissioner Bass.
Q. I am sure that is true. I know a number of them
support you, also.
A. Yes.
Q. But I was asking for the general political complex-
ion of that particular commissioner. And I would ask the
same question as to Commissioner Bray. His general
political support primarily come—by that I mean where
he has to really look for election to a strong ter turn
out—in these three general voting blocks, the Biack,
Mexican-American and the Union voter?
A. This is generally the makeup of Precinct 2 more so
than it is of Precinct 1.
[20]
A. Okay. Now, to get into this area a little bit more,
as I understand—and again, I am predicating this as I
understand. I have not interrogated Commissioner Bass
nor did I have a chance to take his deposition because I
entered the case later. I understand that the records from
our investigation—this will be subject to challenge, be-
cause the records will speak for themselves—indicate that
a substantial portion of the Black precincts and the pre-
cincts identifiable from a voter standpoint as Mexican-
American and certainly the voter precincts identified as
Union delivered substantial majorities for all three mem-
bers of the Court, yourself, Commissioner Bray and Com-
90
missioner Bass in your last elections, with few, if any,
exceptions? That is a general question.
A. That would not be a correct statement.
Q. Alli right. Not generally correct’
A. It is correct as to Commissioners Bass and myself,
but it is not correct, I believe the record will show, in
regard to Commissioner Bray.
[21]
Q. So this redistricting would certainly do, as you said
a politician must do, shore up and broaden his base, to
say the least, wouldn't it?
* * *
Now, there was no serious consideration given, of
course, to appointing a Republican to any one of these
positions, was it, by the Court, as far as you yourself
know?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. All right. What was the primary factor which caused
the Court to decline to do this? I am not asking for any
confidential conversations or personalities, but the basic
reasons.
A. They just were not selected.
Q. All right. It wasn’t a question of fitness? There were
certainly plenty qualified Republicans that would have fit
the bill as much as a non-lawyer would have fit the bill
for a J.P., wasn’t it?
A. There was.
Q. Would you concede it was not a fitness question?
[22]
Q. I don’t mean to imply everybody sat down and said,
“Let’s sap these Republican’s.” I doubt very seriously
10 Oem
ae te BOS eee
91
that would occur. I am just saying the subject of
decision was not there had to be a reason not to
point a Republican, since we were spreading
patronage in this case—and this is what you call new
g
pointment of Judge Zaboroski. And I feel confident that
if he had been a lawyer that he would have been re-
appointed.
Q. Well, he was actually in truth replaced by Judge
Albert Lee, wasn't he, a non-lawyer?
[23]
Q. Now, the Statute, I understand, provided part
26
A
ry
,
:
:
92
A. That is correct.
Q. Also had the right to have appointed Judge
Zaboroski rather than Judge Lee in that particular in-
stance?
A. Right.
Q. Had there really been a serious desire, for instance,
in one thing, to locate—excluding creating safe dis-
tricts—regional courthouses—in other words, a primary
consideration wasn’t first to place nine, eight, seven or six
regional courthouses just geographically then draw the
[24]
lines to conform, but in truth and in fact it drew the
precinct lines and then with the idea, “We will later
come on and determine the location of the courthouses.”
Isn’t that true?
A. Yes, I think that is correct.
Q. All right. Now, one other area that bothered me
in the case, in reading the deposition—I am trying not
to recover much of what was gone into in Eckels’ depo-
sition—one area that bothered me was who made the
basic recommendation on the Commissioners Court to
have this change take effect immediately, as opposed to
the next general election so that the voters would not
be disfranchised immediately after having just elected
people in office in a general election?
A. I think it was the consensus of the miajority to
move forward.
Q. All right. These things don’t happen by osmosis;
somebody has to say—somebody negotiates that. Who
was the majority of three that made the plan or sug-
gested that we do it now, and then I want the reasons
for it, but let’s first find out who made the suggestion?
— eS =
93
A. I think this probably was Commissioner Bass, be-
cause he was the liaison—he had conducted the various
committee meetings and—
Q. He was primarily running this section of the thing
while
[25]
the Court was doing many other things. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. Now, what in your judgment justifies do-
ing these appointments now, as a member of the majority,
as opposed to creating these districts and leaving them
as they are until the next general election and allowing
the voters to select those people who would sit in judg-
ment of them as Judge or handle their security matters
as Constables as had been done in the Commissioners
change just previously?
A. Well, this was different. I think this was a more fair
way of doing it than what we did in the commissioners
redistricting five years ago. At that time we moved an
entire commissioner’s precinct from the north to the west
because one of the commissioners was going to retire,
and this then allowed approximately one-fourth, almost
one-fourth of the voters at that time not to have the
opportunity to vote on a commissioner. I thought that
was very unfair at that particular time.
This time I think the feeling was that there were
some legal problems—TI believe in regard to a case in
San Antonio—whether or not if precinct changes were
made that Justice of the Peace present office holders would
move from one place to another and establish residence.
That plus another factor being that by these
94
[26]
appointments the people this next election would have
the opportunity to look at the individuals that had been
appointed that were the office holders and to then have
an Opportunity to make a selection of their own.
Q. Well, they normally have this at every open elec-
tion, anyhow, don’t they?
A. Yes. But for Justices of the Peace who remained
in office going from a 6,000 population precinct to a
150,000 population precinct the additional people there
would not have had any opportunity of voicing selection
in regard to that particular individual any more so than
if we had appointed him.
[27]
Q. Judge Elliott, I believe you testified as to the fac-
tors which underlay the Court’s decision to redistrict
at the time that it did. One of the factors being the
disparity in population. There was considerable disparity
between the existing JP precincts as they existed prior
to the redistric\ing, was there not?
A. That is correct.
Q. And in addition to that factor, and I suppose
this would have to do with the disparity as a result of
the legislature having upgraded salaries for JP’s and Con-
stables, and it was patently unfair to be paying one JP or
Constable the same salary as another JP where the first
JP or Constable was elected by three or four hundred
voters in a precinct of a few thousand compared to
another JP or Constable in another precinct with three
or four thousand people?
A. That is correct,
a
jmien stn entatin tana aie
95
[28]
Q. In addition to those two factors, I believe you
stated one additional factor was the desirability of the
Court to place lawyers in the various Justice of the Peace
positions?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. And I think you also stated that among
those factors and other factors the Court did give con-
sideration to the formation of minority precincts; that is,
consideration was given for the purpose of having minority
representation in county government?
A. That is correct.
Q. And I will also ask you if the Court considered
the redistricting on the basis of the Federal Census
Tracts?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Can you just offhand recall any other
factors which the Court gave consideration to for the
redistricting which ocurred on June 28, 1973?
A. That would be the factor of the subcourthouses and
the providing of services within the area, making these
services more available. This is, I think, a philosophy of
the majority of the Court, and we hope to have the
various county functions in these subcourthouses.
Q. All right. These have generally been referred to
in the press as regional facilities. Is that not right?
[29]
A. That is correct.
96
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONER JAMIE H. BRAY
[73]
Q. Now then my question would be: Whether or not
there was consideration on your part in casting your vote
for changing the boundaries of the JP’s and Constables,
was there a consideration by you given to the one man-
one vote principles?
A. I think this was the first plan that we started out
talking about, was maybe one man-one vote. And [| think
someone had proposed a plan close to that at one time.
But in looking at it, we looked at the number of papers
served, the best we could, and frankly here is something
else that we are attacking, is an adequate record keeping
system. Hopefully we'll
[74]
have this on computers in the next couple of years: How
many papers are served and what’s handled and so forth.
So, in taking the best records we could find of the
activities in the county, and the potentiality of it, this is
how we arrived in laying these precincts out this way.
And I think everyone of us will tell you that none of
us are saying this is a perfect plan. It’s the best we knew
how to come up with to serve the Harris County people
best.
Q. Now looking at the same copy of the exhibit, which
you have before you there, it’s really apparent that the
one man-One vote principle was not applied.
A. No, sir, it was not.
Q. Even though it’s much less in disparity of popula-
tion than it was before?
97
A. Yeah, I would say so. When you jump from six
thousand to a million and then come over here to a hun-
dred forty six thousand to three hundred thousand.
Q. That was one issue we had raised. This is up to
the Court, Commissioner, to determine whether or not
when you have a voluntary redistricting, the one man-
one vote rule applies.
Now the Court has never ruled on this matter. Now
[75]
keep in mind that we are talking about one mandatory,
where they say, “You have got to” and the other under-
taking, where we’re challenging, is where you don’t have
to, but by virtue of some constitutional provision or state
statute you voluntarily undertake it, as y'all did. You
didn’t have to redistrict the JP precincts. But the Com-
missioners Court voluntarily undertook that, regardless
of what the motives may have been.
And, so, we’re asking the Court that where you have
the authority to undertake this voluntarily, by virtue of
a state statute, then is it mandatory that the one man-one
vote rule apply?
A. John, you know the encouraging thing about this
whole situation, and certainly I don’t want to see the
County expending funds or your clients expending funds
unnecessarily, but the encouraging part about this whole
thing, is that we have raised some pertinent issues of how
we can serve the public best.
Q. Correct.
A. And I am willing to accept whatever the Court
rules. But the big part that really chaps your rear end
is to have someone come in and tell you that you did it
for political purposes. And I can assure you that this was
98
not the intent of setting this thing up, any more than we
are moving computers around for political
[76]
purposes. We are just doing it, trying to get the most
mileage and serving the people the best.
And first of all, I say again, that maybe instead of ten
years, maybe we ought to look at this thing again in
another three or four years, in an urban area, and I would
be perfectly happy to accept the wisdom of the legislature
or a court that lays out a plan that says, “This is the way,
in our wisdom, that you should do it.” I would follow it
to a “T.” And I wouldn't have any qualms about doing it.
The sad part about it is that a bunch of people set
here a hundred years and not do anything at all and just
let the public suffer.
Q. Let me ask you this: Using the standards that apply
in Article 5, Section 18, I may be incorrect on the direct
quotation on that section, but I believe that it states,
“From time to time, for the convenience of the people,
the Commissioners Court has the authority to look at the
boundaries of the various JP and Constable precincts.”
Let’s just talk about them, the JP precincts, because they
are harmonious with the Constables, so to speak, because
you can’t have one without the other.
A. Right.
Q. Calling it JP precincts, but from time to time the
(77)
Commissioners Court, for the convenience of the people,
can redistrict these precincts. Now it doesn’t elaborate
what requirements must be met, if any. I think there is
some case log decisions. Of course, we are challenging
those. But now would you say that your primary consid-
eration was convenience of the people or what’s best for
the people in your judgment? Was that the criterion that
you used in casting your ballot?
A. That was my total criteria for supporting any plan
and redistricting. Here again you must remember this,
too, that a JP’s duties are so close to the people out there,
on everything from a family squabble across the fence
to who picked up Johnny's bicycle. And this again is the
reason that I feel that the importance of this office, that
many disputes can be settled out there by some knowl-
edgeable and well qualified JP.
And frankly, I wouldn’t be opposed to having more
JP’s maybe than two per precinct in an urban area, if
you could bring them closer to the people. And at the
same time if justice is not dealt with or handled properly
by that individual, he is still close enough to the people
out there that they can vote him out of office if they are
being mishandled by him. And I like this part of it.
[78]
And for me to sit here and tell you that I have all the
answers for updating county government, and that every-
thing we have done is just the finest thing since Mother-
hood, I am not going to do it.
But I can tell you again, and I want it for the record
specifically, that no one in our group, that voted for this
plan, did I hear say, “Let’s do this because it will be
politically expedient for an election or for us” or what
have you. I can assure you I wouldn’t have supported it
if it had been along those lines. And it was just trying to
start off with some system to upgrade the present system.
And that was the total intent, to the best of my knowledge.
100
[80]
Q. 6, 7 & 5. Now then that area, about which I am
asking my question, to your knowledge is an unincorpo-
rated area of the City of Houston. Would that be a fair
statement?
A. I would take your word for it.
Q. Let’s exclude the City of Tomball and the City of
Katy?
A. All right.
Q. That area is largely unincorporated?
A. But here again, though, John, you are undoubtedly
missing the point I tried to get over to you. In that total
area, you talked about, there is just—there is only twenty
seven thousand people totally that reside out of that, out
of a million seven hundred fifty thousand. You follow
me?
Q. But I am trying to relate distance to convenience.
That’s going to be my next question.
A. But distance for how many people, though. You are
going to make it more convenient for three hundred thou-
sand than you are for twenty three thousand?
[81]
This is a difficult thing. I am not saying that those.
twenty seven thousand shouldn’t be served, you know, as
convenient as possible, because I do want them to be. But
here again, another thing, the attorney that was question-
ing before said that I wasn’t answering him directly. But
another thing we are looking at, sincerely looking at, is a
regional concept of government. Not only can they go to
a courthouse annex or multipurpose center for J.P.’s and
Constables, but go there and pay their taxes and purchase
ee ne ne a
101
license plates and buy marriage licenses and so forth. And
the total concept is to bring the county government from
the courthouse complex to the court out to the people.
And we feel that in looking at figures of fees collected and
fines and what have you, that on a strictly business basis
of handling the taxpayers money properly, this should be
done.
[82]
Justice precincts, which we now have the maximum, I
believe—
A. Right.
Q. —in Harris County. Now the applying of those
three criteria, approximately sixteen hundred square miles
Seventeen hundred and something.
Okay.
Seventeen plus.
It’s 565 times 3.
I'll stand corrected then if that’s it.
Well, let’s just use seventeen hundred even.
Okay.
Okay, sir. But whatever the square mileage is,
knowing your number of census tracts that you have,
there is no reason why a figure of population and square
mileage could not be reached so it would be seven within
every precinct, to your knowledge? Do you know of any
reason?
A. The only thing about that that would be a good
reason would be the precinct you just mentioned, 5, 6 and
7, has a large—I don’t know what the square mileage
is, but it’s—I’d say more than a third. Far more than a
OPOPOPOP
102
third, but you only had twenty seven thousand people
totally out there.
[84]
Q. I am not questioning your motives, Commissioner.
So I don’t want to offend you, but I want to ask a question.
If Commissioner Bass stated that it was one of the con-
siderations in voting for the redistricting of the J.P.’s and
Constables to give the blacks a piece of the action, would
you tell, for the purposes of the record, was that one of
your motives in voting for it?
A. Well, you know this sounds like Commissioner
Bass, you know, shooting from the hip with some of his
Statements at times. But certainly, as I said earlier, I cer-
tainly do want to consider the blacks and the Chicanos.
But at the same time I want to consider the good people
out in Crosby-Highlands area, when we put a second J.P.
And I am not opposed to everyone having some input into
it. And I'll say this: Prior to this re-
[85]
districting, the black and Chicano population of this
county probably didn’t have a lot to say about electing
a J.P. Very few.
Q. You are not aware of any requirement of the law,
are you, that says that because of a person’s race he is
entitled to be guaranteed a political office?
A. No, sir. And you know, John, I said earlier, and I
really think it’s happening across this country, when you
see again the Mayor of Los Angeles, California elected
where there is only fifteen percent blacks—
Q. I am in agreement with you.
ee ie ee ee
Se ee ee ee ee oe
Ne een in kit NER ae nN Sy
a ee a. =r. oC 2
103
A. It’s changing. And for anybody to come along and
tell me that Precinc! 6 or Precinct 7 is a sure fire Chicano
or a sure fire black, they may be more politically astute
than I am, but I think it’s a pipe dream. I think that day,
in the urban area, is gone.
[86]
A. John, my first criteria, and this is positive proof of
who is out there, my first criteria in making appointments
in those areas you are talking about is did they have the
credentials and then what are those. That was a law
degree.
And Judge Azios and Judge Rodriguez and Judge
Peavy, the court saw fit to appoint, were all attorneys.
[87]
It wasn’t because he had a black face or a brown face.
We were looking at the credentials the guy was carrying.
So that in itself should have showed what the true motives
or redistricting was.
104
[78]
ORDER
(Filed January 30, 1974)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD E. MOORE, J. C. BOLTON,
VERNON G. DOERING, J. W. MAHAN,
GENE ZABOROSKI; and JOHN HOWE BOYNTON,
on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Every Resident
Citizen of the Former Justice of the Peace
Precinct Nos. 5, 6, and 7 of
Harris County, Texas
V.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
WILLIAM ELLIOTT, Individually and as County
Judge of Harris County, E. A. LYONS, Individually
and as a Member of the Harris County Commissioners
Court, ROBERT ECKELS, Individually and as a Member
of the Harris County Commissioners Court, JAMIE
BRAY, Individually and as a Member of the Harris
County Commissioners Court, and TOM BASS,
Individually and as a Member of the Harris County
Commissioners Court
CIVIL ACTION NO. 73-H-993
ORDER
This action came on for hearing before a three-judge
district court composed of the Honorable Thomas G.
Gee, Circuit Judge, the Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr.,
District Judge, and the Honorable Carl O. Bue, Jr., Dis-
trict
ws ee eee ey Getiiine
105
[79]
Judge, and the issues having been duly heard and decision
having been duly rendered.
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
I. This court has jurisdiction under Title 28, U.S.C.A.
§ 2281.
Il. The Texas statute Article 2351%, Vernon’s Ann.
Civ. St., is facially unconstitutional.
III. The order of the Commissioners Court of Harris
County, Texas, of June 28, 1973, complained of herein
issued pursuant thereto is therefore permanently enjoined.
An opinion of this court will follow.
DONE at Houston, Texas, on this the 30th day of
January, 1973.
THOMAS G. GEE
Thomas G. Gee
Circuit Judge
JOHN V. SINGLETON, JR.
John V. Singleton, Jr.
District Judge
CARL J. BUE, JR.
Carl J. Bue, Jr.
District Judge
106
[80}
IN THE
United States District Cort
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD E. MOORE, ET AL,
Vv.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
ET AL
No. 73-H-993
BLACKIE NEELEY
v.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,
ET AL
No. 73-H-1033
Before GEE, Circuit Judge, SINGLETON and BUE,
District Judges.
GEE, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs are duly elected Justices of the Peace, Con-
stables and voters of three former Harris County pre-
cincts which have been abolished by order of defendants,
the County Judge and Commissioners of Harris County,
Texas. At the time of the order, and today, the terms to
which the plaintiff office-holders were elected had not
expired. The Commissioners acted under authority of a
Texas Constitutional provision’ permitting revision of
1. Tex. Const. Art. 5, §18.
107
precincts from time to time “for the convenience of the
people” and Article 235142, Texas Revised Civil Statutes.
_ This article provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(c) When boundaries of justice of the peace
precincts are changed, so that existing precincts
are altered, new precincts are formed, or former
the vacancy shall be filled as other vacancies;
provided, however, that in «YT having two jus-
if two reside therein, both shall continue in
and if more than two reside therein, both
Offices shall become vacant.
The manner in which defendants’ order redrew the
Harris County precinct lines resulted in the vacating of
plaintiffs’ offices by force of the quoted portion of the
Statute.
The statute is attacked on numerous grounds, most of
which we need not discuss, since we conclude that its
effect to end the term of some of the duly elected jus-
tices of the peace and constables of Harris County con-
Stitutes an impermissible abridgement of the franchise of
those entitled to vote for them and a violation of the
equal protection clause, both without the showing of
any compelling state interest to be served thereby.
Defendants are local officers, functioning pursuant to
statewide policies embodied in the constitutional and stat-
108
utory provisions cited. An injunction is sought on consti-
tutional grounds against the effect of Article 2351% to
truncate the term of some of the plaintiffs and set at
nought the vote of those who elected them to these offices.
‘Lhese offices are the creation of state law; the jurisdiction
of the offices in question is statewide,’ and the statute
attacked is of statwide effect and impact. The consti-
tutional issues raised are not facially insubstantial, and
the complaints clearly called for the convening of a
three-judge court.
We are not unmindful of the decision in Snowden v.
Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944), in which the right of a
citizen to be a candidate for state office was held to be
unprotected by the privileges and immunities clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, or that in dicta the court ex-
tended its holding to the right to vote for and hold
such office. But we are persuaded that this case is not
controlled by Snowden.
In the first place, on its facts Snowden involved a candi-
dacy only. We treat here of a Texas state office, which
has been repeatedly held by the courts of Texas to be a
species of property, e.g., State ex rel Jennett v. Owens,
63 Tex. 261 (1885). The Fourteenth Amendment might
well be seen as extending protection to an elected and
qualified office-holder, but not to a mere aspirant as in
Snowden.
In the second place, it appears that events have marched
by the view taken in Snowden of the division of state
2. Eg. Arts. 2385, 6885, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. The jurisdiction
of a justice of the peace is to be distinguished from the venue lim-
itations of Art. 2390, R.CS.
109
and federal responsibilities.’ More recent Supreme Court
decisions have sapped the force of Snowden’s vision of the
federal structure. The “privileges and immunities” clause
of the Fouiicoxth Amendment has become irrelevant in
considering protection of the right to run and vote for
state office. Modern concepts of equal protection have
assumed that burden. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134,
31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); White v. Regester, __. U.S. __.,
37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elec-
tions, 383 U.S. 663, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); cf. Oregon
v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 27 L.Ed.2d 272 (1970).
Insofar as Art. 23514 operates to truncate the term
of a duly elected public official upon the circumstance
that a mere convenience redistricting places him in a dis-
trict with others, it invidiously and irrationally discrim-
inates between him and others not so affected and be-
tween the effect of the votes of those who voted or
were entitled to vote in his election and voters whose
franchise was not so bobbed. No compelling interest was
here served by such discrimination.* Certainly it was not
necessary to effect redistricting im mid-term or, if that
were thought pressing, it was mot compelling that the
office be declared vacant as a result. Indeed, the analogous
3. See Mancuso v. Taft, 476 F.2d 187, 196-97 n.14 (Ist Cir.
1973).
4. Defendants’ only contention which approaches advancing such
an interest for redistricting is that the old precincts were egregiously
disproportionate in population. This is true, but the new districts were
clearly not drawn with any ideal of population equality foremost in
mind; the order establishing them itself recites that one contains
almost two and one-half times as many people as another. Nor would
population equalization, if seen as a compelling reason for redistricting
and faithfully served in drawing the new precincts, bear any necessary
relation to vacating these offices, a different consideration entirely.
8 Ee
cue '
110
section pertaining to county commissioners, Art.
2351%2(b), expressly provides that the term of office of
a county commissione™ is not to be affected by redistrict-
ing, even though its effect may be to place his residence
outside the precinct for which he was elected.
The duly elected justices of the peace and constables,
plaintiffs here, are entitled to serve the terms to which
they were elected. Insofar only as Article 235142, Texas
Revised Civil Statutes mandates otherwise, it is uncon-
stitutional. Insofar only as defendants’ order of January
30, 1973, undertakes to appoint other persons to plain-
tiffs’ offices, and to prevent plaintiffs from carrying out
the duties and receiving the emoluments of their offices
during the term to which they were elected, it is likewise
invalid.
THOMAS GIBBS GEE
United States Circuit Judge
JOHN V. SINGLETON _ jx.
United States District Judge
CARL O. BUE, JR.
United States District Judge
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.