Reply Brief — Leroy Symm, Tax Assessor-Collector of Waller County, Texas v. United States

PTET FODAK. JR., CLERK

Supreme Court of the Hnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

NO. 77-1688

LE ROY SYMM, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Southern District Of Texas

BRIEF OPPOSING THE UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO AFFIRM

WILL SEARS

MICHAEL T. POWELL

823 Two Houston Center

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 654-4454

Counsel for Appellant

October 10, 1978

TABLE OF CASES

Ballas v. Symm, 351 F. Supp. 876 ............. 05.046.

Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 ............0eee eee eeeeee

Bullock v. Calvert, 480 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. Sup. 1972) ...

ee GO Dee, AO UW GED ccccccncosccncesconcee

Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Commission, 379 U.S. 487

Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. S51 ..........

Propper v. Clark, 337 US. 472 .........cccceeeecveees

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 .... 2.2.2... e cece eeeee

Whatley v. Clark, 482 F.2d 1230 (Sth Cir. 1974), cert.

Or We OE an hace cnenesersesapeseccess

Wilson v. Symm, 341 F. Supp. 8 ...........00 eee eceeees

CONSTITUTIONS

I, BES, og cic cccantensoccccccecossnccees

EE, CE nis on od cca dbodbeedeeseesounes

Twenty-Sixth Amendment ..............--eeeseeeeeees

STATUTES

Texas Election Code

ED <6 eka bacek 6606cORn CON ReSESeeseeNss

PEE ck bdinted 6d beds 6604668 nes Ceecndescovces

PE MT iach nvedindccdesesibeseccoestéoeeseseee

ED oi cen paundn669eso0d660004000006R00000

PE iic6 ceo cu 6eudnnseécuqeséceedéocenceds

SED MED 660660606 0400666dbecasesnaoess cecccees

SE EEE bbb. cucdkdeeedosceenerdascnsececusescece

SE CE pect cod dsehudedescdesencussescepeceses

oO + UAamaanaaana g

or

AauUuwuUnaan

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

NO. 77-1688

LE ROY SYMM, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Southern District Of Texas

BRIEF OPPOSING THE UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO AFFIRM

The unavoidable issue in this case is th meaning of

residence for voting purposes. “Residence” was clearly

construed in the published opinion of the district court.

Words and phrases are defined by judicial construction.

Thus, inescapably the definition of residence was affected

by the decision of the lower court. That decision un-

equivocally says that students who are in Waller County

only for the duration of their college education and have

no intention of remaining in the county after its com-

pletion are voting residents. Historically, 96.37% of the

2

dents at Prairie View A&M ae fall into this

ras +a home” was Fort et Worth. (172).

intecest “Sai nae “The Texas

by the Texas Election Code. or ate

:

So en ee ae ee ee

t at Prairie View AKM in the course of vote

482 F.2d 1230 (Sth ¢ Cir. 1974), coe. d denied, 415 US.

934, munpien teint Geaneemnde gunn

a lone | Tea Co., 309 US.

379 US. 487 bold tat the Court wil not review Jae

pendent state . Runyon v. "McCrary, 427 US.

181-182; Bishop Wood, 426 US. 341, 346 and

a. 10, ae © Clark, 337 US. 472, 486-487.

Seay See fem en sarty-defenc

ants in Ge sult with

Articles 1.03, 5.01, $.02, 5.08 5.09, $.10a, 5.178 and

involved in all three cases. There i is be proof that

For the reasons stated, the United States’ Motion To

Affirm should be denied.

(713) 654-44 $4