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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1072%3A5

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1979
- **Citation:** 439 U.S. 1105

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1072%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.