Appendix — White v. Weiser

Supreme Court brief1973

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

INDEX

tation i court opinion, ete... —

ats

” fotion to Intervene as Plaintiff

laint in Intervention

Order

I sposition Testimony:

- Gus Franklin Mutscher

4 ‘Ben Barnes a

_ Gregory Drew Hooser

_ Carl Robin Teague

y Zan Wesley Holmes -.

ee ed

| J. P. Word |

_ Delwin L. Jones .....

4 onal H. Mauzy

NOTATION

The following items appear in an appendix in the

printed Jurisdictional Statement at the pages noted

and are not reprinted in this appendix:

A. a a ee ee ae, Jan-

uary 22, 1972

hie of the District Court, January 25, 1972 .

. Senate Bill One, Tex. Acts, 62nd Leg., 1st CS.,

1971, ch. 12, p. 38

Map, S.B. 1

Deviation Table, S.B. 1

. Map, Plaintiffs’ Plan B

Deviation Table, Plan B

. Map, Plaintiffs’ Plan C

Deviation Table, Plan C

. Table, Deviation of State Ideal Districts from

National Ideal District

. Table, Proportions of Population 18 Years Old

and Over, Texas Congressional Districts, 1960

. Notice of Appeal

Designation of Record

“1 O01

il 71

ii- 9-71

i1- #71

ll- 9-71

il- 9-71

11-18-71

12-15-71

10-19-71

11-15-71

11-24-71

11-23-71

12- 5-71

12-14-71

1- 6-72

1-12-72

1-14-72

1-19-72

1-20-72

1-21-72

(Title omitted in printing.)

Decket Entries

Filed MARSHAL’S RETURN ON SUMMONS executed 10-

ag mvs Hon. — Bullock, Sec. of State, by deliver-

osiin,

Plaintiffs’ Notice to take the deposition of Ben Barnes,

Lieutenant Governor, at 9:30 am. Dec. 2, 1971, in Austin,

Filed Plaintiffs’ Notice to take the deposition of Ben Barnes

at 9:30 a.m., Dec. 2, 1971, in Austin, Tex. (With Certificate of

Filed Plaintiffs’ Notice to take deposition of G. F. Mutscher,

the House of Representatives, at 1:30 p.m., Dec.

exas. ‘

T .

Filed Plaintiffs’ Notice to take deposition of Greg Hooser on

the 8rd day of Dec., 1971, at 9:30 a.m. in Austin, Texas.

Filed Plaintiffs’ Notice to take the _ we of Carl Robin

pn at 2:00 p.m., Dee. 3; 4971, in Antonio, Texas.

MARSHAL’S RETURN ON DEPOSITION SUB-

POENA executed 11-15-71 by serving Carl Robin Teague.

Mailed copy of docket sheet and all pleadings with transmit-

Filed COMPLAT T ee for three-jud

i request for lu court

and issued SUMMONS (1). il

Filed DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT (ANSWER).

Filed Defendant’s DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.

Filed Judge John R. Brown’s Order designating Circuit Judge

Irving L. Goldberg Lose District Judge W. M. Taylor, Jr. to

. M. M. H

Filed PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT. {Copies to the

Jud, .

Filed CE TIFICATE OF SERVICE as to Amended Complaint.

Filed PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF with APPENDIX.

Filed DEPOSITION OF REP. DELWIN L. JONES.

Filed ORAL DEPOSITION OF BEN BARNES.

Filed ORAL DEPOSITION OF GREGORY DREW HOOSER.

Filéd ORAL DEPOSITION OF CARL ROBIN TEAGUE.

Filed. STIPULATIONS re Clyde Haynes and Charles Wilson.

Filed AFFIDAVIT OF John T. Potter.

Filed MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF of M. O.

Turner, Mrs. Lois White, Richardson B. Gill, Mrs. Mary Louise

Pino and Mrs. Martin Jackson.

Filed DEPOSITION OF ZAN WESLEY HOLMES.

Filed DEPOSITION of Oscar H. —

Filed OPINION AND ORDER. This Court holds that S.B. 1 is

unconstitutional; defendant is enjoined from conducting or per-

mitting any verge of general elections based upon the dis-

tricts establis by S.B. 1. Leave to intervene is granted to

Van Henry Archer, Jr., individually and as Chairman of the

Bexar County Republican Party, to the extent stated by the

attorney for intervenors in open court. Plan C is adopted and

declared to be in effect an operative. Maintenance of this

cause as a class action is denied. This judgment is considered,

for purposes of appeal and otherwise, as a final ju ent in

this — and no stay of proceedings pending appeal will be

nted.

Scales mailed to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the

iii

3-21-72

House of Re of State and Attorney

General of the given to all attorneys

of record.

Filed COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION, with exhibits.

— PRE-TRIAL ORDER. (Signed 1-21-72). Copies mailed

Hed ORDER amending Opinion and Order of Jan. 22. 1972.

rectify clerical errors as to Districts 10 and %

Copies mailed to the Governor,

House of Representatives

General of the State of Texas and to all

Flies ROE OF Aen tute of

. Sec. of State of Texas.

Flea ESIGNATION AND SERTIFICATION OF RECORD.

APPENDIX

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1972

No. 71-1623

BOB BULLOCK, etc.,

Appellant

vs.

DAN WEISER, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

‘ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAN WEISER, DONALD COLEMAN,

JOHN L. EDWARDS, HUGH ELLIOTT,

JOHN W. FLETCHER, JOHN R. KARR,

JOYCE V. KARR, BENJAMIN NEWCOMB,

NORMA PALMER, MARVIN ZIMET,

Plaintiffs

No. CA-3-5202-A

” |

HONORABLE BoB BULLOCK,

SECRETARY OF STATE OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

| Defendant

COMPLAINT

[filed, October 18, 1971]

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME DAN WEISER and the other individ-

uals named as Plaintiffs above, on behalf of themselves

and others similarly situated comprising the class

hereinafter defined, and complaining of the Honorable

Bob Bullock in his capacity as Secretary of State of

the State of Texas, hereinafter called Defendant,

would for cause of action respectfully show:

PARTIES — CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff —Residence Per 8.B. 1

DAN WEISER

8851 Rugged Circle

Dallas, Texas

DONALD COLEMAN

2412 Thirteenth Street

Lubbock, Texas 19th

JOHN L. EDWARDS

1930 Dancliff

Dallas, Texas 6th

HUGH ELLIOTT

Lm 3515 Cranbrook

“JOHN FLETCHER

2701 22nd, No. 3

Lubbock, Texas | 19th

JOHN R. KARR

520 Prospect

El Paso, Texas 16th

JOYCE V. KARR

520 Prospect

El Paso, Texas 16th

BENJAMIN NEWCOMBE

3905 B 21st Street

Lubbock, Texas 19th

NORMA PALMER

206 Mary Drive oe

Iowa Park, Texas 13th

MARVIN ZIMET

6200 Pinehurst

E! Paso, Texas 16th

All Plaintiffs are qualified and duly registered to vote

in elections for the United States House of Represen-

tatives in their respective districts.

Class Action:

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all other

qualified voters, registered and unregistered, within

the several districts wherein the respective Plaintiffs

—2—

reside as well as all other qualified voters in all other

congressional districts in the State of Texas.

' That the number of persons comprising the class so

defined is so numerous as to make it impossible to

bring them before the Court. That Plaintiffs, as quali-”

fied and registered voters, are fairly representative

of the class as defined.

That by virtue of the foregoing, this action is prop-

erly brought by these Plaintiffs as a class action pur-

suant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure.

Defendant:

The Defendant Bob Bullock is the duly qualified and

acting Secretary of State of the State of Texas. That

by the provisions of Article 1.08 of the Texas Election

Code (Acts, 60th Leg., Ch. 723, p. 1860 §38, 1967) he is,

by virtue of his office, the chief election officer of the

State of Texas and is charged with the duty, inter alia,

of “. . . obtain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity

in the application, operation and interpretation of the

election laws.” Said Defendant may be served at his

offices in the State Capitol Building in Austin, Texas.

That pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2284,

Notice of hearings in this suit must be given to the

Honorable Preston Smith, Governor of the State of

Texas at his office or official residence in Austin,

Texas, and to the Honorable Crawford Martin, Attor-

ney General of the State of Texas at his office in

Austin, Texas.

Il.

JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others simi-

—_ sn

larly situated, sue to have the Texas statute establish-

ing congressional districts for the State of Texas

(S.B.1, Acts 62nd Leg., 1971) declared violative of

Article I §2 of the Federal Constitution and of the

XIVth Amendment, §§ 1 & 2 to the Federal Constitu-

tion, and to enjoin its enforcement and the conduct of

elections thereunder. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction,

sitting as a three-judge Court under Title 28 of the

U. S. Code, §1343 and §2281.

Il.

CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ARTICLE I §2

A. That under ARTICLE I §2, Cl. 8 of the Federal

Constitution, as a result of the 1970 decennial federal

census, the State of Texas was apportioned twenty.

four members of the United States House of Repre-

sentatives.

B. That the 62nd Legislature of the State of Texas

enacted S.B.1 appended hereto as Exhibit A and here-

with incorporated by reference for all purposes as

though set forth at length herein. That said statute

divides the State into twenty-four congressional dis-

tricts and provides that one member of the House of

Representatives shall be elected from each district.

C. That said statute provides that it will become

effective for the general election in 1972, and, by

implication, for the primary elections to be held by

the Democratic and Republican parties of Texas prior

thereto pursuant to Article 13.02 of the Texas Election

Code (Acts 52nd Leg., Ch. 492, p. 1097, Art. 180, 1951).

D. That Article I, §2 of the Federal Constitution

requires that such congressional districts be as com-

pact, contiguous and as nearly equal in population

as is practicable so that the vote cast by each voter

will be equal in weight to the vote of every other voter.

_E. That the congressional districts established by

S.B.1 are not as compact, contiguous and as nearly

equal in population as is practicable, and therefore

said statute violates on its face Article I §2 of the

Federal Constitution. Thus, Plaintiffs, and others

similarly situated are deprived of their Constitutional

right to have their vote count for as much as every

other voter.

F. In support of the foregoing, Plaintiffs show:

3 (1) that the population of the State of Texas,

according to the 1970 federal census, was eleven mil-

lion, one hundred ninety-six thousand, seven hundred

and thirty (11,196,730) persons;

(2) that mathematically, each congressional

district should contain four hundred sixty-six thou-

sand, five hundred and thirty (466,530) persons;

_ (8) that the district containing the largest

population according to the census is the Thirteenth

(18th) District, which contains four hundred seventy-

seven thousand, eight hundred and fifty-six (477,856)

persons, or eleven thousand, three hundred and

twenty-six (11,326) persons more than a numerically

equal district;

- (4) that the district containing the smallest

population according to the census is the Fifteenth

(15th) District, which contains four hundred fifty-

eight thousand, five hundred and eighty-one (458,581)

persons, or seven thousand, nine hundred and forty-

nine (7,949) persons ‘less than a numerically equal

listrict:

’

_ (5) that expressed in percentages, the popula-

tion of the Thirteenth (13th) District is 2.4% greater

than a numerically equal district; and the population

of the Fifteenth (15th) District is 1.7% less than a

numerically equal district;

(6) that the population of the largest district

is greater than the smallest district by nineteen thou-

sand, two hundred and seventy-five persons; or, ex-

pressed in percentages, 4.1% greater;

(7) that the vote of a voter in the Thirteenth

(18th) District is worth only 96% of the vote of a

voter in the Fifteenth (15th) District;

(8) that the population of each district estab-

lished by S.B.1, according to the federal decennial cen-

sus, together with its deviation from the mathemati-

cally equal district, expressed numerically and in per-

centages, is shown by the following table, viz.

District Population Differences(—) % Difference

1 461,879 —4651 1.00

2 466,836 +306 01

3 465,221 —1309 28

4 463,142 —3388 73

5 465,093 —1437 31

6 467,913 +1383 30

xf 461,704 —4826 1.03

8 461,216 —5314 1.14

9 467,483 +953 20

10 465,493 —1037 22

11 468,148 +1618 35

12 465,671 —859 18

13 477,856 +11,326 2.43

14 467,839 +1309 28

15 458,581 —7949 1.70

16 477,614 +11,084 2.38

17 467,912 +1382 30

18 462,062 —4468 96

SSRBRS&

G. That the districts created by S.B.1 were created

as a result of political expediency, to perpetuate in

office those Representatives whose political philoso-

phy coincided with that of the dominant forces in the

State legislature, to create “safe seats” for those of

a like mind, to provide a political denouement for past

political favors or grievances, to neutralize the votes

of ethnic or economic blocs, and with only minimal

regard to the constitutional mandate of “one man,

one vote.”

H. That the legislature desired to enact a statute

consonant with the mandate of Article I §2 of the

Federal Constitution, it could have drawn twenty-four

districts having almost the same geographic boun-

daries whereby the population difference between the

largest and smallest is only six hundred ninety-six

(696) persons, or .1 percent (0.001). Such a plan is

annexed hereto as Exhibit B, and herewith incorpor-

ated by reference for all purposes as thought set forth

at length herein.

I. That under S.B.1, the Eighteenth (18th) District

purporting to encompass the central portion of Hous-

ton, in Harris County, duplicates census tract number

121, containing three thousand, seven hundred nine-

teen (3,719) persons and wholly omits census tract

number 122 containing four thousand, six hundred

twenty-seven (4,627) persons. That the effect of such

omission is to wholly disenfranchise in congressional

elections the otherwise qualified voters residing in

a ae

said census tract and to understate the population of

said district by nine hundred and eight (908) persons,

That such error is not made in the plan advocated by

Plaintiffs contained in Exhibit B.

_ J. That under S.B.1, the Twenty-Second (22nd)

District purporting to encompass the south and south-

east portion of Harris County (Houston), duplicates

census tract number 334 containing five thousand,

five hundred fifty-nine (5,559) persons and wholly

omits census tract number 344 containing one thou-

sand, seven hundred and six (1,706) persons,. That

the effect of such omission is to wholly disenfranchise

in congressional elections the otherwise qualified

voters residing in said census tract and to overstate

the population of said district by three thousand eight

hundred and fifty-three (8,858) persons. That such

error is not made in the plan advocated by Plaintiffs

contained in Exhibit B.

K. That the population of each district under

Plaintiffs’ plan, according to the federal decennial

census, together with its deviation from the mathema-

tically equal district, expressed numerically, is shown

by the following table, viz.

District Population Differences (—)

Sep eoOntanr OD

—_

11 466,258 —272

12 466,930 +400

13 466,663 +1383

14 466,437 — 98

15 466,359 Lik

16 466,663 +133

17 466,432 — 98

18 466,520 = 10

19 466,649 +119

20 466,514 — 16

21 466,753 +223

22 466,707 +177

23 466,424 —106

24 466,875 +345

Percentage deviation is so small as to be of no signifi-

cance, and is therefore omitted.

CAUSE OF ACTION —

UNDER XIVTH AMENDMENT

Plaintiffs adopt by reference the allegiations of

Paragraph III hereof.

Plaintiffs further allege:

A. That it constitutes an invidious discrimination

in favor of those residents of less populous districts

~—"4

over those residents of more populous districts;

B. that the plan embodied therein is wholly arbi-

trary and irrational when measured by constitutional

requirements of equality.

That for these reasons S.B.1 denies Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated equal protection of the law,

which denial is forbidden by §1 of: the XIVth Amend-

- ment to the Federal Constitution.

PLE ONO TES NN PS IE LE

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

1. That Defendant be cited to appear and answer

herein.

2. That the Court enter an Order pursuant to Rule

23, F.R.C.P. adjudging this suit to be a class action on

behalf of all qualified voters in the State of Texas.

3. That a three-judge Court be convened pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.A. §2284.

4, That a preliminary injunction issue restraining

and enjoining the Defendant from conducting or caus-

ing to be conducted any general or primary elections

to fill congressional seats based upon the districts es-

tablished in the said statute.

5. That upon final hearing said statute be adjudged

and declared unconstitutional and therefore void.

6. That upon final hearing a permanent injunction

issue upon the same terms as the preliminary injunc-

tion.

7. That appropriate orders issue upon final hearing

directing the legislature of the State of Texas to enact

a law creating congressional districts which meet the

requirements of the Federal Constitution.

8. That if the legislature fails to enact a law creat-

ing congressional districts which meet the require-

ments of the Federal Constitution, the plan promul-

gated by Plaintiffs be adopted as the judgment of the

Court and appropriate orders issued to require that

all congressional elections be conducted thereunder

until a constitutionally acceptable law is enacted.

—10—

9. In the alternative, if the legislature fails to enact

a law creating congressional districts which meet the

requirements of the Federal Constitution, that the

Court enter appropriate orders to require that all con-

gressional seats apportioned to the State of Texas be

filled by at-large elections.

10. That all costs be adjudged against the Defen-

dant; and that the Court retain jurisdiction to render

such further order as may seem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

FISCHMAN, ROSENBERG, KASMIR &

PRESTON

601 Kirby Building

1509 Main Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

744-5511

By: s/Lawrence Fischman

By: s/David H. Rosenberg

=, |

EXHIBIT A

S. B. No. 1

AN ACT

relating to reapportionment of congressional districts;

repealing Chapter 342, Acts of the 60th Legislature,

Regular Session, 1967 (Article 197c, Vernon’s Texas

Civil Statutes); and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS: |

Section 1. The State of Texas is apportioned into

Congressional Districts as provided in the following

sections. Each district is entitled to elect one Member

to the House of Representatives of the Congress of

the United States.

Sec. 2. District 1 is composed of Bowie, Camp, Cass,

‘Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Harrison, Hender-

son, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Panola, Red

River, Rusk, San Augustine, Shelby, Titus, Upshur,

and Wood Counties.

Sect. 3. District 2 is composed of Anderson, Angel-

ina, Freestone, Grimes, Hardin, Houston, Jasper,

Leon, Liberty, Madison, Montgomery Nacogdoches,

Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Jacinto, Trinity,

Tyler, and Walker Counties.

Sec. 4. District 3 is composed of that part of Dallas

County included in census tracts 192.05, 192.06, 192.07,

192.04, 192.08, 192.02, 192.01, 191, 190.02, 190.03, 185.02,

130.02, 130.01, 78.08, 78.02, 136.02, 136.08, 132, 133, 131,

—12—

78.01, 76.04, 77, 186.01, 96.04, 134.02, 76.03, 75.02, 137.04,

187.05, 188.01, 96.08, 96.02, 184.01, 185, 76.01, 76.02,

7.01, 74, 73.01, 73.02, 71.02, 4.08, 95, 94, 98, 97, 96.01,

138.02, 187.01, 187.02, 189, 140.01, 72, 6.01, 4.02, 4.01,

6.02, 5, 19, 100, 99, 187.03, 140.02, 142, 148, 147, 146,

145, 152, 149, 150, 151, 198, 148, 101, 102, 108, 104,

69, 68, 48, 44, 42, 20, 105, 106, 190.04, 195.01, 18, 7.01,

and 41.

Sec. 5. District 4 is composed of Collin, Grayson,

Hunt, Gregg, Kaufman, Rains, Rockwall, Smith, and

Van Zandt Counties, and that part of Dallas County

included in census tracts 181.01, 181.02, 181.03, 181.04,

and 182.

Sec. 6. District 5 is composed of that part of Dal-

las County included in census tracts 190.01, 190.06,

190.07, 190.05, 189, 188, 185.01, 186, 187, 188, 184, 126,

127, 128, 129, 180, 125, 124, 82, 179, 128, 122.01, 81, 80,

1, 12, 79.01, 198.01, 193.02, 3, 2.02, 2.01, 10, 11.01, 11.02,

14, 15.01, 13.01, 13.02, 15.02, 22.02, 81.02, 30, 38, 34, 29,

35, 36, 28, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.01, 27.02, 37, 38, 39.01, 39.02,

40, 83, 84, 85, 91.01, 91.02, 98.01, 93.02, 115, 122.02,

178.01, 178.02, 90.01, 90.02, 92.01, 121, 120, 119, 176.02,

176.01, 172, 175, 174, 177, 178.02, 178.01, 170, 194, 195.02,

71.01, 197, 196, 7.02, 9, 8, 16, 22.01, 17.01, 21, 31.01, 32.01,

82.02, 118, 92.02, 79.02, and 17.02.

Sec. 7. District 6 is composed of Brazos, Ellis, Hill,

Johnson, Limestone, Navarro, and Robertson Coun-

ties; that part of Dallas County included in census

tracts 164, 165.01, 165.02, 165.03, 165.04, 165.05, 166.04,

166.03, 166.02, 166.01, 109, 108, 61, 110, 111.01, 111.02,

112, 118, 167.01, 167.02, 168, 169.04, 169.01, 169.02,

169.08, 171, 116, and 117; and that part of Tarrant

County included in census tracts 108.08, 109, 54.01,

=— 13

55.01, 54.02, 42.01, 48, 42.02, 48.01, 47, 56, 48.02, 55.02,

57.01, 58, 59, 60.02, 60.01, 110.02, 57.02, 55.08, 55.04 and

110.01.

Sec. 8. District 7 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 558, 557, 554, 553, 552,

556, 555, 551, 545, 550, 549, 548, 547, 546, 544, 537, 538,

541, 540, 452, 451, 543, 542, 529, 528, 527, 526, 519, 517,

449

542

443, 442, 441, 444, 447, 448, 450, 449, 446, 445, 440, 421,

406, 420, 422, 439, 438, 437, 436, 423, 419, 424, 435, 407,

409, 408, 411, 418, 417, 416, 425, 426, 434, 429, 428, 427,

438, 430, 431, 432, 410, and 413, and that part of census

tract 405 included in census block group 5.

Sec. 9. District 8 is composed of that part of Harris

BEBE

rE.

Sec. 10. District 9 is composed of Chambers, Galves-

ton, and Jefferson Counties and that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 250, 249, 247, 238, 251,

248, 246, 252, 258, 287, 236, 254, 256, 255, 257, 258, 235,

259, 260, 226, and 239.

Sec. 11. District 10 is composed of Austin, Bastrop,

Blanco, Burleson, Caldwell, Colorado, Fayette, Hays,

Lee, Travis, Waller, and Washington Counties.

Sec. 12. District 11 is composed of Bell, Bosque,

Burnet, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Hood, Lampasas,

a= 14 —

McLennan, Milam, Mills, Parker, Somervell, and Wil-

liamson Counties.

Sec. 13. District 12 is composed of that part of Tar-

rant County not included in district 6 or 24.

Sec. 14. District 13 is composed of Archer, Arm-

strong, Baylor, Briscoté, Carson, Childress, Clay, Col-

lingsworth, Cottle, Dallam, Dickens, Donley, Foard,

Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill,

Hutchinson, King, Knox, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley,

Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman,

Swisher, Wheeler, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties.

Sec. 15. District 14 is composed of Aransas, Cal-

houn, Jackson, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Pa-

tricio, Victoria, and Wharton Counties, and that part

of Brazoria County included in enumeration districts

108, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 184, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 148, 144,

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153B, 158, 159, 160, and 160B.

Sec. 16. District 15 is composed of Brooks, Cam-

eron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy,

Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy, and

Zapata Counties.

Sec. 17. District 16 is composed of Brewster, Cul-

berson, El] Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Pre-

sidio, Reeves, Ward, and Winkler Counties, and that

part of Ector County not included in district 19.

Sec. 18. District 17 is composed of Borden, Brown,

Callahan, Coleman, Comanche, Cooke, Crosby, East-

land, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Garza, Haskell, Howard,

Jack, Jones, Kent, McCulloch, Mitchell, Montague,

—6-—

ba PO Pe IF COT we CELIO EON fee LAs RO Le

Nolan, Palo Pinto, San Saba, Scurry, Shackelford,

Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wise, and

Young Counties.

Sec, 19. District 18 is composed of that part of Har.

ris County included in census tracts 219, 521, 520, 510,

518, 509, 207, 511, 518, 512, 507, 508, 206, 204, 205, 503,

506, 516, 514, 515, 505, 504, 502, 501, 201, 121, 401, 126,

121, 128, 402, 125, 403, 404, 124, 303, 302, 301, 311, 310,

312, 309, 318, 304, 306, 305, 316, 307, 308, 314, 315, 317,

330, 318, 328, and that part of census tract 405 not in-

cluded in census block group 5.

Sec. 20. District 19 is composed of Andrews, Bailey,

Castro, Cochran, Dawson, Deaf Smith, Gaines, Hale,

Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Midland,

Parmer, Terry, and Yoal Counties, and that part

of Ector County inclu census tracts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

24, and 25, and that of census tract 21 East of

U.S. Highway 385 and North of the Texas and Pacific

Railroad.

See. 21. District 20 is composed of that part of

Bexar County not included in district 21 or 23.

Sec. 22. District 21 is composed of Bandera, Coke,

Comal, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie,

Glasscock, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Llano,

Mason, Menard, Pecos, Reagan, Réal, Runnels, Schlei-

cher, Sterling, Sutton, Terrell, Tom Green, Upton,

Uvalde, and Val Verde Counties, and that part of

Bexar County included in census tracts 1719, 1720,

1816, 1817, 1806, 1807, 1815, 1821, 1820, 1819, 1915, 1916,

1914, 1818, 1814, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1813, 1812, 1911, 1912,

1909, 1918, 1207, 1210, 1209, 1208, 1206, 1208, 1204, 1808,

1808, 1802, 1908, 1718, 1717, 1714, 1805, 1917, 1211, 1212,

— 16 —

1218, 1617, 1219, 1218, and 1215.

Sec. 28. District 22 is composed of Fort Bend Coun-

ty; that part of Brazoria County not included in dis-

trict 14; and that part of Harris County included in

census tracts 412, 414, 415, 331, 329, 332, 333, 334, 339,

348, 342, 319, 825, 326, 324,

858, 366, 348, 359, 347, 346,

370, 367, 369, 368, 378, 374, 371, 372, 375, 327, and

Sec. 24. District 23 is composed of Atascosa, Bee,

DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe,

Karnes, LaSalle, Lavaca, Maverick, Medina, Webb,

Wilson, and Zavala Counties, and that part of Bexar

County included in census tracts 1619, 1620, 1612, 1613,

1610, 1611, 1512, 1520, 1521, 1513, 1511, 1514, 1516, 1518,

1519, 1522, 1416, 1415, 1418, 1417, 1414, 1413, 1419, 1312,

1318, 1814, 1810, 1809, 1815, 1205, 1214, 1217, 1216, 1817,

1316, 1818, 1517, 1615, and 1618.

Sec. 25. District 24 is composed of Denton County;

that part of Dallas County included in census tracts

153.01, 153.02, 144, 141.04, 141.08, 141.02, 154, 161,

141.01, 155, 160, 162, 156, 157, 159, 163, 158, 107, 67, 199,

65, 64, 45, 58, 52, 46, 47, 51, 50, 68.02, 62, 48, 54, 56, 49,

89, 55, 88, 86, 114.02, 87.01, 87.02, 57, 59.01, 59.02, 60.01,

68.01, 114.01, and 60.02, and that part of Tarrant

County included in census tracts 65.05, 131, 130, 218,

217.02, 217.01, 216.02, 216.01, 65.04, 65.01, 14.01, 65.02,

65.08, 14.08, 18, 216.08, 115.01, 115.02, 222, 228, 225, 224,

221, 220, 219, 229, 228, 227, 226, 115.03, 115.04, 114,

111.02, 60.08, 112.02, 112.01, and 118.

Sec. 26. The terms “census tract” and “census

enumeration district,”as used in this Act, mean those

—17—

geographic areas outlined and identified as such on

official place, county, and metropolitan map series

maps prepared by the United States Department of

Commerce Bureau of the Census for the Nineteenth

Decennial Census of the United States, enumerated as

of April 1, 1970.-“Bloék groups” are subdivisions of

census tracts as defined on census metropolitan maps

which differentiate block groups by the first digit of

the block numbers assigned to city blocks within each

tract.

Sec. 27. The Texas Legislative Council shall furnish

to the Commissioners Court of each county which is

divided into two or more districts appropriate maps

showing census tract, census enumeration district, or

census block group lines to facilitate the identification

of district lines.

Sec. 28. Chapter 342, Acts of the 60th Legislature,

Regular Session, 1967 (Article 197c, Vernon’s Texas

Civil Statutes), is repealed.

Sec. 29. Nothing in this Act affects the tenure in

office of the present delegation in Congress, but this

Act takes effect for the general election in 1972.

See. 30. The importance of this legislation and the

crowded condition of the calendars in both Houses

create an emergency and an imperative public neces-

sity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be

read on three several days in each House be sus-

pended, and this Rule is hereby suspended.

Lieutenant Governor Speaker of the House |

I hereby certify that S. B. No. 1 passed the Senate

—18 —

on June 1, 1971, by a viva voce vote; June 2, 1971, Sen-

ate refused to concur in House amendments and re-

quested appointment of Conference Committee; June

2, 1971, House granted request of the Senate; June 4,

1971, Senate adopted Conference Report by the fol-

lowing vote: Yeas 17, Nays 9, and one paired vote.

Secretary of the Senate

I hereby certify that S. B. No. 1 passed the House

on June 2, 1971, with amendments, by the following

vote: Yeas 66, Nays 49; June 2, 1971, House granted

request of the Senate for appointment of Conference

Committee; June 4, 1971, House adopted Conference

Report by the following vote: Yeas 80, Nays 58, and

one present not voting.

Chief Clerk of the House

Approved:

Date

Governor

—19—

EXHIBIT B

PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

DISTRICT 1 is composed of Bowie, Camp, Cass,

Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Harrison, Hender-

son, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Panola, Red

River, Rusk, San Augustine, Shelby, Titus, Upshur,

and Wood Counties; that part of Hunt County in-

cluded in the Lone Oak census county division; and

that part of Rains County included in the Emory cen-

sus county division.

DISTRICT 2 is composed of Anderson, Angelina,

Grimes, Hardin, Houston, Jasper, Leon, Liberty, Mad-

ison, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange,

Polk, Sabine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Walker

Counties, and all of Freestone County not included in

the Streetman Town part of the Wortham census

county division.

DISTRICT 8 is composed of that part of Collin

County included in the Nevada, Plano, and Wylie cen-

sus county divisions; that part of Denton County in-

cluded in the Lewisville census county division; and

that part of Dallas County included in census tracts

1, 2.01, 2.02, 8, 6.01, 7.02, 9, 10, 11.01, 11.02, 71.01, 72,

78.01, 78.02, 74, 75.01, 75.02, 76.01, 76.02, 76.03, 76.04, 77,

78.01, 78.02, 78.08, 79.01, 79.02, 80, 81, 82, 94, 95, 96.01,

96.02, 96.08, 96.04, 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, 130.01,

130.02, 131, 182, 133, 134.01, 134.02, 135, 136.01,

136.02, 136.08, 187.01, 187.02, 187.03, 137.04, 187.05,

138.01, 138.02, 189, 140.01, 140.02, 141.01, 141.02,

141.08, 142, 143, 146, 147, 185.02, 190.02, 190.03,

190.04, 190.06, 191, 192.01, 192.02, 192.03, 192.04,

192.05, 192.06, 192.07, 198.01, 198.02, 194, 195.01,

— 20 —

195.02, 196, 197, and 198.

DISTRICT 4 is composed of Grayson, Gregg, Kauf-

man, Rockwall, Smith and Van Zandt Counties; that

part of Collin County not included in District 3; that

part of Cooke County included in the Gainesville

North Callisburg census county division; that part of

Denton County not included in District 3; that part of

Hunt County not included in District 1; and that part

of Rains County not included in District 1.

DISTRICT 5 is composed of that part of Dallas

County not included in District 3 or 6 or 24.

DISTRICT 6 is composed of Brazos, Ellis, Hill,

Johnson, Limestone, Navarro and Robertson Coun-

ties; that part of Freestone County not included in

District 2; that part of Parker County included in

the Weatherford Southeast and the Weatherford

Southwest census county divisions; that part of Dal-

las County included in census tracts 60.01, 60.02, 61,

63.01, 108, 109, 110, 111.01, 111.02, 164, 165.01, 165.02,

165.08, 165.04, 165.05, 166.01, 166.02, 166.03, 166.04,

167.02, 168, 169.01, 169.02, 169.03 and 169.04; and that

part of Tarrant County included in census tracts 60.08,

111.02, 112.01, 112.02, 108.08, 109, 54.01, 55.01, 54.02,

42.01, 48, 42.02, 48.01, 47, 56, 48.02, 55.02, 57.01, 58, 59,

60.02, 60.01, 110.02, 57.02, 55.08, 55.04 and 110.01.

DISTRICT 7 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 558, 557, 554, 558,

552, 556, 555, 551, 545, 550, 549, 548, 547, 546, 544, 587

part of census tract 405 included in census block group

DISTRICT 8 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 559, 244, 245, 248, 242,

585, 241, 533, 240, 223, 531, 582, 222, 221, 224, 525, 524,

528, 522, 220, 218, 225, 217, 216, 215, 227, 521, 229, 228

230, 214, 203, 209, 218, 231, 212, 202, 210, 211, 232, 233,

321, 320, 322, 350, 351, 352, 354, 234, 262, 261, 267,

268, 263, 265, 266, 270, 269, 271, 264, 361, 362, 273

274, 272, 275, 364, 360, 363, 365, 530, 539, 534, 254

and 353.

)

DISTRICT 9 is composed of Chambers, Galveston

and Jefferson Counties and that part of Harris Coun-

ty included in census tracts 250, 249, 247, 238, 251, 248,

246, 252, 258, 237, 236, 256, 255, 257, 258, 235, 259, 260,

226 and 239. !

DISTRICT 10 is composed of Austin, Bastrop,

Blanco, Burleson, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Travis and

Washington Counties; that part of Caldwell County

included in the Martindale census county division; that

part of Colorado County not included in the Garwood

census county division; that part of Gonzales County

included in the Waelder census county division; that

part of Lavaca County included in the Moulton and

Shiner census county divisions; that part of Waller

County not included in the Brookshire census county

division; and that part of Williamson County included

in the Florence, Georgetown, Jarrell and Liberty Hill

census county divisions.

DISTRICT 11 is composed of Bell, Bosque, Brown,

Burnet, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Hood, Lampasas,

McCulloch, McLennan, Milam, Mills, San Saba, and

— 22 —

4 ™

Somervell Counties; that part of Coleman County not

included in the Coleman census county division; that

part of Comanche County included in the Gustine cen-

sus county division; that part of Erath County in-

cluded in the Stephenville South census county divi-

sion; and that part of Williamson County not included

in District 10.

DISTRICT 12 is composed of that part of Tarrant

County not included in District 6 or 24.

DISTRICT 13 is composed of Archer, Armstrong,

Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Clay, Collingsworth, Cot-

tle, Dallam, Dickens, Donley, Foard, Gray, Hall, Hans-

ford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, King,

Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter,

Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler, Wich-

ita and Wilbarger Counties.

DISTRICT 14 is composed of Aransas, Calhoun,

Jackson, Matagorda, Neuces, Refugio, San Patricio,

Victoria and Wharton Counties; that part of Colorado

County not included in District 10; and that part of

Lavaca County not included in District 10.

DISTRICT 15 is composed of Brooks, Cameron,

Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kle-

berg, Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata

Counties; that part of Bee County included in the

Pettus-Pawnee census county division; and that part

ef Karnes County included in the Kenedy census coun-

ty division.

DISTRICT 16 is composed of Culberson, El Paso,

Hudspeth, Loving, Presidio, Ward and Winkler Coun-

ties; that part of Jeff Davis County included in the

— 23 —

Valentine census county division; that part of Reeves

County included in the Pecos census county division;

and that part of Ector County not included in Dis.

trict 19.

DISTRICT 17 is composed of Baylor, Borden, Cal-

lahan, Crosby, Eastland, Fisher, Floyd, Garza, Has-

kell, Howard, Jack, Jones, Kent, Knox, Lynn, Mitchell,

Montague, Nolan, Palo Pinto, Scurry, Shackelford,

Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wise and

Young Counties; that part of Coleman County not in-

cluded in District 11; that part of Comanche County

not included in District 11; that part of Cooke Coun-

ty not included in District 4; that part of Dawson

County included in the Lamesa Southeast census coun-

ty division; that part of Erath County not included

in District 11; and that part of Parker County not in-

cluded in District 6.

DISTRICT 18 is composed of that part of Harris

County not included in District 7 or 8 or 9 or 22.

DISTRICT 19 is composed of Andrews, Bailey, Cas-

tro, Cochran, Deaf Smith, Gaines, Hale, Hockley,

Lamb, Lubbock, Martin, Midland, Parmer, Terry and

Yoakum Counties; that part of Dawson County not

included in District 17; and that part of Ector County

included in census tracts, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 24 and

25. |

DISTRICT 20 is composed of that part of Bexar

County not included in District 21 or 28.

DISTRICT 21 is composed of Bandera, Brewster,

Coke, Comal, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Edwards, Gil-

lespie, Glasscock, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Llano,

Mason, Menard, Pecos, Reagan, Real, Runnels, Schlei-

cher, Sterling, Sutton, Terrell, Tom Green, Upton, and

Val Verde Counties; that part of Jeff Davis County

not included in District 16; that part of Medina Coun-

ty in the D’Harris and Hondo census county divisions;

that part of Reeves County not included in District

16; and that part of Bexar County included in census

tracts 1719, 1720, 1816, 1817, 1806, 1807, 1815, 1821,

1820,1819, 1915, 1916, 1914, 1818, 1814, 1809, 1810, 1811,

1818, 1812, 1911, 1912, 1909, 1918, 1207, 1210, 1209, 1208,

1206, 1208, 1204, 1808, 1808, 1802, 1908, 1718, 1717, 1714,

1805, 1917, 1211, 1212, 1218, 1617, 1219, 1218, and 1215.

DISTRICT 22 is composed of that part of Fort Bend

Counties; that part of Waller County not included in

District 10; and that part of Harris County included

in census tracts 412, 414, 415, 381, 332, 329, 366, 389,

840, 385, 338, 336, 337, 341, 348, 342, 319, 325, 326, 324,

410, 355, 356, 349, 357, 358, 348, 359, 347, 346, 345, 370,

367, 369, 368, 378, 374, 371, 872, 375, 327, 328, and 344.

DISTRICT 23 is composed of Atascosa, DeWitt,

Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Guadalupe, Kinney, LaSalle,

Maverick, Uvalde, Webb, Wilson and Zavala Counties;

that part of Bee County not in District 15; that part

of Caldwell County not in District 10; that part of

Gonzales County not in District 10; that part of

Karnes County not in District 15; that part of Medina

County not in District 21; and that part of Bexar

County included in census tracts 1619, 1620, 1612, 1618,

1610, 1611, 1512, 1520, 1521, 1518, 1511, 1514, 1516,

1518, 1519, 1522, 1416, 1415, 1418, 1417, 1414, 1418, 1419,

1312, 1318, 1314, 1310, 1309, 1815, 1205, 1214, 1217, 1216,

1317, 1816, 1818, 1517, 1615, 1618 and 1508.

DISTRICT 24 is composed of that part of Dal'as

— 25 —

So 5

census tracts 20, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,

58, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59.01, 59.02,

, 68, 69, 86, 87.01, 87.02, 88, 89, 101,

zeR

;

.01, 158.02, 154, 155, 156,

160, 161, 162, 168, 167.01 and 199; and

Tarrant County included in census tracts

06, 131, 130, 218, 217.02, 217.01, 216.02,

65.02, 65.08, 13, 216.03, 115.01, 115.02,

225, 224, 221, 220, 219, 229, 228, 227, 226,

15.04, 114 and 113.

SEES

gent

The terms “census tract” and “census county divi-

sion” means those geographic areas outlined and iden-

tified as such on official place, county, and metropoli-

tan map series maps prepared by the United States

Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census for

the Nineteenth Decennial Census of the United States,

enumerated as of April 1, 1970. The population figures

for counties and census county divisions are those

published January, 1971, in the United States Depart-

ment of Commerce publication PC (V1)—45 Texas,

1970 Census of Population, advance report, Final Pop-

ulation Counts. “Block groups” are subdivisions of

census tracts as defined on census metropolitan maps

which differentiate block groups by the first digit of

the block numbers assigned to city blocks within each

tract.

(Title Omitted in printing.)

[Filed, November 15, 1971]

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Bob Bullock, Secretary of State of

the State of Texas, the Defendant in the above styled

and numbered cause, represented herein by Crawford

C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and in reply to

Plaintiffs’ Complaint files this his Answer and would

respectfully show the Court.as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a cause of action

upon which relief can be granted.

II.

A. The Defendant admits the allegations contained

in paragraphs A, B and C of paragraph III of Plain-

tiffs’ Complaint.

B. The Defendant admits the allegations contained

in subparagraphs (1) through (6) of paragraph F of

paragraph III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

C. The Defendant admits the allegations contained

in subparagraph (8) of paragraph F of paragraph III

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

D. The Defendant denies the allegations contained

in paragraphs E, G and H of paragraph III of Plain-

tiffs’ Complaint.

E. The Defendant denies the allegations contained

in subparagraph (7) of paragraph F of paragraph III

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

F. The Defendant denies the allegations contained

in paragraph IV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

G. The Defendant admits those allegations con-

tained in paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint concern-

ing the Defendant and the notice to be given to the

Governor of the State of Texas and the Attorney Gen-

eral of the State of Texas, but to the remaining allega-

tions contained in paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

the Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or in-

formation to either admit or deny the truth of such

allegations, and therefore the same are denied.

H. The Defendant admits the allegations con-

tained in the last sentence of paragraph II of Plain-

tiffs’ Complaint, but the Defendant does not have

sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or

deny the remaining allegations of paragraph II of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore the same are

denied.

- I, The Defendant admits the allegations contained

in paragraph D of paragraph III of Plaintiffs’ Com-

plaint that Section 2 of Article I of the Federal Con-

stitution requires that Congressional districts be as

compact, contiguous and as nearly equal in population

as is practical, but the Defendant denies the remain-

ing allegations contained in paragraph D of paragraph

III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

J. The Defendant admits the allegations con-

tained in paragraph K of paragraph III of Plaintiffs’

Complaint with the exception of the last sentence

thereof, which the Defendant denies.

K. The Defendant’ denies the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs I and J of paragraph III of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

ITI.

The Defendant affirmatively alleges that Senate Bill

1, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, 1971, Regular Session,

which apportions the State of Texas into Congressional

districts complies with the Constitution and laws of

the United States and of the State of Texas.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the

Defendant prays that the relief sought by the Plain-

tiffs be in all things denied.

CRAWFORD C. MARTIN

Attorney General of Texas

PaT BAILEY

Assistant Attorney General

P. O. Box 12548

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Attorneys for Defendant

(Certificate of Service omitted in printing)

(Title omitted in printing.)

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Filed, January 10, 1972]

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME DAN WEISER and other individuals

named as Plaintiffs above, on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated comprising the class herein.

after defined, and complaining of the Honorable Bob

Bullock in his capacity as Secretary of State of the

State of Texas, hereinafter called Defendant, would

for cause of action respectfully show:

PARTIES—CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff—Residence Per 8.B. 1

DAN WEISER

8851 Rugged Circle

Dallas, Texas 6th

DONALD COLEMAN

2412 Thirteenth Street

Lubbock, Texas 19th

JOHN L. EDWARDS

1930 Dancliff

Dallas, Texas 6th

HUGH ELLIOTT

3515 Cranbrook

Wichita Falls, Texas 13th

— 30 —

JOHN FLETCHER

2701 22nd, No. 3

Lubbock, Texas 19th

JOHN R. KARR

520 Prospect

E] Paso, Texas ; 16th

JOYCE V. KARR

520 Prospect

El Paso, Texas 16th

BENJAMIN NEWCOMB

$905 B 21st Street

Lubbock, Texas 19th

NORMA PALMER

206 Mary Drive

Towa Park, Texas 18th

MARVIN ZIMET

6200 Pinehurst

El Paso, Texas 16th

All Plaintiffs are qualified and duly registered to vote

in elections for the United States House of Represen-

tatives in their respective districts.

Class Action:

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all other

qualified voters, registered and unregistered, within

the several districts wherein the respective Plaintiffs

Teside as well as all other qualified voters in all other

congressional districts in the State of Texas.

That the number of persons comprising the class so

— |

defined is so numerous as to make it impossible to

bring them before the Court. That Plaintiffs, as quali-

fied and registered voters, are fairly representative of

the class as defined.

That by virtue of the foregoing, this action is prop

erly brought by these Plaintiffs as a class action pur.

suant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro.

cedure.

Defendant:

The Defendant Bob Bullock is the duly qualified and

acting Secretary of State of the State of Texas. That

by the provisions of Article 1.08 of the Texas Election

Code (Acts, 60th Leg., Ch. 728, p. 1860 §8, 1967) he is,

by virtue of his office, the chief election officer of the

State of Texas and is charged with the duty, inter alia,

of “. .. obtain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity in

the application, operation and interpretation of the

election laws.” Said Defendant may be served at his

offices in the State Capitol Building in Austin, Texas,

That pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2284,

Notice of hearings in this suit must be given to the

Honorable Preston Smith, Governor of the State of

Texas at his office or official residence in Austin, Tex-

as, and to the Honorable Crawford Martin, Attorney

General of the State of Texas at his office in Austin,

Texas.

JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others simi-

—32—

larly situated, sue to have the Texas Statute establish-

ing congressional districts for the State of Texas (S.B.

1, Acts 62nd Leg., 1971) declared violative of Article

I §2 of the U. S. Constitution and of the XIVth Amend-

ment, §§ 1 & 2 to the U. S. Constitution, and to enjoin

its enforcement and the conduct of elections thereun-

der. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction, sitting as a

three-judge Court under Title 28 of the U. S. Code,

§1848 and §2281.

Til.

CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER ARTICLE I §2

A. That under ARTICLE I §2, CL 8 of the U. S.

Constitution, as a result of the 1970 decennial federal

census, the State of Texas was apportioned twenty-

four members of the United States House of Represen-

tatives.

B. That the 62nd Legislature of the State of Texas

enacted S.B. 1 appended hereto as Exhibit A and here-

with incorporated by reference for all purposes as

though set forth at length herein. That said statute

divides the State into twenty-four congressional dis-

tricts and provides that one member of the House of

Representatives shall be elected from each district.

Said congressional redistricting plan is hereinafter

referred to as “Plan A”.

_C. That said statute provides that it will become

effective for the general election in 1972, and, by im-

plication, for the primary elections to be held by the

Democratic and Republican parties of Texas prior

thereto pursuant to Article 13.02 of the Texas Elec-

on Code (Acts 52nd Leg., Ch. 492, p. 1097, Art. 180,

1961). .

D. That Article I, §2 of the U. S. Constitution re-

quires that such congressional districts be as com-

pact, contiguous and as nearly equal in population as

is practicable so that the vote cast by each voter will

be equal in weight to the vote of every other voter.

E. That the congressional districts established by

S.B. 1 are not as compact, contiguous and as nearly

equal in population as is practicable; and therefore

said statute violates on its face Article I §2 of the

U. S. Constitution. Thus, Plaintiffs, and others simi-

larly situated are deprived of their Constitutional

right to have their vote count for as much as every

other voter.

F. In support of the foregoing, Plaintiffs show:

(1) that the population of the State of Texas, ac-

cording to the 1970 federal ce was eleven million,

one hundred ninety-six tho seven hundred and

thirty (11,196,780) persons;

(2) that mathematically, each congressional dis-

trict should contain four hundred sixty-six thousand,

five hundred and thirty (466,530) persons;

(8) that the district containing the largest popula-

tion according to the census is the Thirteenth (13th)

District, which contains four hundred seventy-seven

thousand, eight hundred and fifty-six (477,856) per-

sons, or eleven thousand, three hundred and twenty-

six (11,826) persons more than a numerically equal

district;

(4) that the district containing the smallest popu-

lation according to the census is the Twenty-second

—

(22nd) District, which contains Four hundred fifty-

four thousand, eight hundred twenty (454,820) per-

sons, or eleven thousand, seven hundred ten (11,710)

persons less than a numerically equal district;

_ (5) that expressed in percentages, the population

of the Thirteenth (13th) District is 2.4% greater than

a numerically equal district; and the population of the

Twenty-second (22nd) District is 2.5% less than a nu-

merically equal district;

(6) that the population of the largest district is

greater than the smallest district by twenty-three

thousand thirty six (23,086) persons; or, expressed

in percentages, 4.9% greater;

(7) that the vote of a voter in the Thirteenth

(13th) District is worth less than 96% of the vote of

a voter in the Twenty-second (22nd) District;

(8) that the population of each district established

by S.B. 1, according to the federal decennial census,

together with its deviation from the mathematically

equal district, expressed numerically and in percent-

ages, is shown by the following table, viz:

District Differences (—)

Population % Difference

1 461,879 —4651 1.00

2 466,836 +306 01

3 465,221 —1309 28

4 463,142 —3388 73

5 465,098 —1487 31

6 467,913 +1383 30

7 461,704 —4826 1.08

8 461,216 —5814 1.14

G. That the districts created by S.B. 1 were created

as a result of political expediency, to perpetuate in of-

fice those Representatives whose political philosophy

coincided with that of the dominant forces in the State

legislature, to create “safe seats” for those of a like

mind, to provide a political denouement for past polit-

ical favors or grievances, to neutralize the votes of

ethnic or economic blocs, and with only minimal re-

gard to the constitutional mandate of “one man, one

vote.”

H. That had the legislature desired to enact a stat-

ute consonant with the mandate of Article I §2 of the

U. S. Constitution it could have drawn twenty-four

districts having almost the same geographic boun-

daries whereby the population difference between the

largest and smallest is only six hundred ninety-six

(696) persons, or .1 percent (0.001). Such a plan is an-

nexed hereto as Exhibit B, and herewith incorporated

by reference for all purposes as though set forth at

length herein. Said Plan will be referred to as “Plan

B”.

That said Plan B results from an adjustment of

Plan A enacted by the legislature so as to equalize

as Closely as practicable the population of each dis-

trict, The said proposed Plan B thus takes into account

all the factors other than population relied on by the

legislature in the enactment of S.B. 1 (herein referred

to as Plan A). However, the primary emphasis of Plan

B is. on making the districts as numerically equal in

population as is practicable rather than emphasizing

the non-population factors as was done in Plan A.

L That the population of each district under Plain-

tiffs’ Plan B, according to the federal decennial census,

together with its deviation from the mathematically

equal district, expressed numerically, is shown by the

following table, viz:

District Population Differences (—)

+ 15

a m

466,359

466,663

466,432

466,520

466,649

466,514

466,758

466,707

466,424

466,875

Percentage deviation is so small as to be of no signif.-

cance, and is therefore omitted.

J. That had the legislature desired to enact a stat-

ute consonant with the mandate of Article I §2 of the

U. S. Constitution, that is a plan which made each dis-

trict as compact and contiguous and as nearly equal

in population as each other district as practicable, tak-

ing into account solely population and not taking into

account “social”, “cultural”, “economic” or “other

factors” including preservation of incumbent con-

gressmen, it could have enacted a plan the same as or

substantially similar to that plan set forth in Exhibit

C annexed hereto and herewith incorporated by refer-

ence as though set forth at length herein. That such

plan is hereinafter referred to as “Plan C”. That Plan

C provides for districts that are significantly more

compact and contiguous than those set forth in Plan

A. That the population difference between the largest

and smallest district proposed under Plan C is 132

persons which is less than three tenths (3/10) of one

per cent (1%) or 0.0028.

K. That the population of each district under Plain-

tiffs’ Plan C, according to the federal decennial census,

= po

together with its deviation from the mathematically

equal district, expressed numerically, is shown by the

following table, viz:

: +

District Population Differences (—)

—5A4

Percentage deviation is so small as to be of no signifi-

cance, and is therefore omitted.

IV.

§.B. 1 DISENFRANCHISES CERTAIN VOTERS

—39 —

A. That under S.B. 1, the Eighteenth (18th) Dis

trict purporting to encompass the central portion of

Houston, in Harris County, duplicates census tract

number 121, containing three thousand, seven hundred

nineteen (3,719) persons and wholly omits census tract

number 122 containing four thousand, six hundred

twenty-seven (4,627) persons. That the effect of such

omission is to wholly disenfranchise in congressional

elections the otherwise qualified voters residing in said

-~ census tract and to understate the population of said

district by nine hundred and eight (908) persons. That

such error is not made in the plan advocated by Plain-

tiffs contained in Exhibit B and Exhibit C.

B. That under S.B. 1, the Twenty-Second (22nd)

District purporting to encompass the south and south-

east portion of Harris County (Houston), duplicates

census tract number 334 containing five thousand, five

hundred fifty-nine (5,559) persons and wholly omits

census tract number 344 containing one thousand,

seven hundred and six (1,706) persons. That the effect

of such omission is to wholly disenfranchise in con-

gressional elections the otherwise qualified voters re-

siding in said census tract and to overstate the popu-

lation of said district by three thousand eight hundred

and fifty-three (3,853) persons. That such error is not

made in the plan advocated by Plaintiffs contained in

Exhibit B and Exhibit C.

CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER

XIVTH AMENDMENT

Plaintiffs adopt by reference the meeenone of Para-

graph III hereof.

—_—

Plaintiffs further allege:

A. that it constitutes an invidious discrimination in

favor of those residents of less populous districts over

those residents of more populous districts;

B. that the plan embodied therein is wholly arbi-

trary and irratiosal when matqyged by constitutional

requirements o1 equality. .

That for these reasons S.B. 1 denies Plaintiffs and

those similarly situated equal protection of the law,

which denial is forbidden by §I of the XIVth Amend-

ment to the U. S. Constitution.

VI.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

1. That Defendant be cited to appear and answer

herein.

2. That the Court enter an Order pursuant to Rule

3, F.R.C.P. adjudging this suit to be a class action on

behalf of all qualified voters in the State of Texas.

8. That a three-judge Court be convened pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.A. §2284.

4, That a preliminary injunction issue restraining

and enjoining the Defendant from conducting or caus-

ing to be conducted any general or primary elections

to fill congressional seats based upon the districts es-

tablished in the said statute.

a= 4]

5. That upon final hearing said statute be adjudged

and declared unconstitutional and therefore void.

6. That upon final hearing a permanent injunction

issue upon the same terms as the preliminary injunc.

tion.

7. That appropriate orders issue upon final hearing

directing the legislature of the State of Texas to enact

a law creating congressional districts which meet the

requirements of the U.S . Constitution.

8. That if the legislature fails to enact a law cre-

ating congressional districts which meet the require-

ments of the U. S. Constitution, either Plan B or Plan

C promulgated by Plaintiffs or any variation thereof

supported by the evidence and the law be adopted as

the judgment of the Court and appropriate orders

issued to require that all congressional elections be

conducted thereunder until a constitutionally accep-

table law is enacted.

9. In the alternative, if the legislature fails to en-

act a law creating congressional districts which meet

the requirements of the U. S. Constitution, that the

Court enter appropriate orders to require that all con-

gressional seats apportioned to the State of Texas be

filled by at-large elections.

10. That all costs be adjudged against the Defen-

dant; and that the Court retain jurisdiction to render

such further orders as may seem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

RISCHMAN, ROSENBERG, KASMIR &

PRESTON

601 Kirby Building

1509 Main Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

744-5511

By: s/Lawrence Fischman

By: s/David H. Rosenberg

(Certificate of Service omitted in printing.)

EXHIBIT A

AN ACT

relating to reapportionment of congressional districts;

repealing Chapter 342, Acts of the 60th Legislature,

Regular Session, 1967 (Article 197c, Vernon’s Texas

Civil Statutes); and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS:

Section 1. The State of Texas is apportioned into

Congressional Districts as provided in the following

sections. Each district is entitled to elect one Member

to the House of Representatives of the Congress of

the United States.

Sec. 2. District 1 is composed of Bowie, Camp, Cass,

Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Harrison, Hender-

son, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Panola, Red

River, Rusk, San Augustine, Shelby, Titus, Upshur,

and Wood Counties.

Sec. 8. District 2 is composed of Anderson, Angel-

ina, Freestone, Grimes, Hardin, Houston, Jasper,

Leon, Liberty, Madison, Montgomery, Nacogdoches,

Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Jacinto, Trinity,

Tyler, and Walker Counties.

Sec. 4. District 3 is composed of that part of Dallas

County included in census tracts 192.05, 192.06, 192.07,

192.04, 192.08, 192.02, 192,01, 191, 190.02, 190.08, 185.02,

180.02, 180.01, 78.08,-78.02, 186.02, 136.03, 182, 183, 131,

78.01, 76.04, 77, 186.01, 96.04, 134.02, 76.08, 75.02, 137.04,

187.05, 188.01, 96.08, 96.02, 184.01, 184, 76.01, 76.02,

—

7.01, 74, 73.01, 73.02, 71.02, 4.03, 95, 94, 98, 97, 96.01,

188.02, 187.01, 187.02, 189, 140.01, 72, 6.01, 4.02, 4.01,

- 6.02, 5, 19, 100, 99, 187.08, 140.02, 142, 148, 147, 146, 145,

152, 149, 150, 151, 198, 148, 101, 102, 108, 104, 69, 68, 43,

4, 42, 20, 105, 106, 190.04, 195.01, 18, 7.01, and 41.

Sec. 5. District 4 is composed of Collin, Grayson,

Hunt, Gregg, Kaufman, Rains, Rockwall, Smith, and

Van Zandt Counties, and that part of Dallas County

included in census tracts 181.01, 181.02, 181.08, 181.04,

and 182.

Sec. 6. District 5 is composed of that part of Dallas

County included in census tracts 190.01, 190.06, 190.07,

190.05, 189, 188, 185.01, 186, 187, 188, 184, 126, 127, 128,

129, 180, 125, 124, 82, 179, 128, 122.01, 81, 80, 1, 12; 79.01,

198.01, 198.02, 3, 2.02, 2.01, 10, 11.01, 11.02, 14, 15.01,

13.01, 18.02, 15.02, 22.02, 81.02, 80, 88, 34, 29, 85, 36, 28,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27.01, 27.02, 37, 88, 39.01, 39.02, 40, 88, 84,

8, 91.01, 91.02, 98.01, 98.02, 115, 122.02, 178.02, 90.01,

90.02, 92.01, 121, 120, 119, 176.02, 176.01, 172, 175, 174,

177, 178.02, 178.01, 170, 194, 195.02, 71.01, 197, 196, 7.02,

9, 8, 16, 22.01, 17.01, 21, 81.01, 32.01, 32.02, 118, 92.02,

79.02, and 17.02.

Sec. 7. District 6 is composed of Brazos, Ellis, Hill,

Johnson, Limestone, Navarro, and Robertson Coun-

ties; that part of Dallas County included in census

tracts 164, 165.01, 165.02, 165.08, 165.04, 165.05, 166.04,

166.08, 166.02, 166.01, 109, 108, 61, 110, 111.01, 111.02,

112, 118, 167.01, 167.02, 168, 169.04, 169.01, 169.02,

169.08, 171, 116, and 117; and that part of Tarrant

County included in census tracts 108.08, 109, 54.01,

56.01, 54.02, 42.01, 48, 42.02, 48.01, 47, 56, 48.02, 55.02,

fee 58, 59, 60.02, 60.01, 110.02, 57.02, 55.08, 55.04, and

01.

Rtas nine

See. 8,. District 7 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 558, 557, 554, 553, 552,

556, 555, 551, 545, 550, 549, 548, 547, 546, 544, 537, 538,

541, 540, 452, 451, 548, 542, 529, 528, 527, 526, 519, 517,

447, 448, 450, 449, 446, 445, 440,

437, 436, 423, 419, 424, 435,

418, 417, 416, 425, 426, 434, 429,

, 481, 432, 410, and 413, and that

of census tract 405 included in census block group

Sec. 9. District 8 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 559, 244, 245, 243, 242,

536, 535, 241, 538, 240, 228, 581, 532, 222, 221, 224, 525,

220, 218, 225, 217, 216, 215, 227, 208, 229,

208, 209, 218, 231, 212, 202, 210, 211, 232,

$51, 352, 354, 234, 262, 261, 267,

269, 271, 264, 361, 362, 278, 274,

Sec. 10. District 9 is composed of Chambers, Gal-

veston, and Jefferson Counties and that part of Har-

ris County included in census tracts 250, 249, 247, 238,

251, 248, 246, 252, 258, 237, 236, 254, 256, 255, 257, 258,

235, 259, 260, 226, and 239.

Sec. 11. District 10 is composed of Austin, Bastrop,

Blanco, Burleson, Caldwell, Colorado, Fayette, Hays,

Lee, Travis, Waller, and Washington Counties.

Sec. 12. District 11 is composed of Bell, Bosque,

Burnet, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Hood, Lampasas,

McLennan, Milam, Mills, Parker, Somervell, and Wil-

liamson Counties. ~

Sec. 18. District 12 is composed of that part of Tar

‘el cis

rant County not included in district 6 or 24.

Sec. 14, District 13 is composed of Archer, Arm-

strong, Baylor, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Clay, Col-

lingsworth, Cottle, Dallam, Dickens, Donley, Foard,

Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill,

Hutchinson, King, Knox, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley,

Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman,

Swisher, Wheeler, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties.

Sec. 15. District 14 is composed of Aransas, Cal-

houn, Jackson, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Pa-

tricio, Victoria, and Wharton Counties, and that part

of Brazoria County included in enumeration districts

108, 122, 128, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 180, 181, 182,

188, 184, 185, 186, 137, 188, 139, 140, 141, 142, 1438, 144,

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153B, 158, 159, 160, and 160B.

Sec. 16. District 15 is composed of Brooks, Cam-

eron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy,

Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy, and

Zapata Counties.

Sec. 17. District 16 is composed of Brewster, Cul-

berson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Pre-

sidio, Reeves, Ward, and Winkler Counties, and that

part of Ector County not included in district 19.

Sec. 18. District 17 is composed of Borden, Brown,

Callahan, Coleman, Comanche, Cooke, Crosby, East-

‘land, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Garza, Haskell, Howard,

Jack, Jones, Kent, McCulloch, Mitchell, Montague,

Nolan, Palo Pinto, San Saba, Scurry, Shackelford,

Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wise, and

Young Counties. :

— )

Sec. 19. District-18 is composed of that part of Har.

ris County included in census tracts 219, 521, 520, 510,

518, 509, 207, 511, 518, 512, 507, 508, 206, 204, 205, 508,

506, 516, 514, 515, 505, 504, 502, 501, 201, 121, 401, 126

122, 128, 402, 125, 408, 404, 124, 808, 802, 301, 811, 310,

812, 309, 818, 304, 306, 305, 316, 307, 308, 314, 315, 317,

$30, 318, 328, and that part of census tract 405 not in-

cluded in census block group 5.

Sec. 20. District 19 is composed of Andrews, Bailey,

Castro, Cochran, Dawson, Deaf Smith, Gaines, Hale,

Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Midland,

Parmer, Terry, and Yoakum Counties, and that part

of Ector County included in census tracts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

24, and 25, and that part of census tract 21 East of

U. S. Highway 385 and North of the Texas and Pacific

Railroad.

Sec. 21. District 20 is composed of that part of

Bexar County not included in district 21 or 23.

Sec. 22. District 21 is composed of Bandera, Coke,

Comal, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie,

Glasscock, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Llano,

Mason, Menard, Pecos, Reagan, Real, Runnels, Schlei-

cher, Sterling, Sutton, Terrell; Tom Green, Upton,

Uvalde, and Val Verde Counties, and that part of |

Bexar County included in census tracts 1719, 1720,

1816, 1817, 1806, 1807, 1815, 1821, 1820, 1819, 1915, 1916,

1914, 1818, 1814, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1818, 1812, 1911, 1912,

1909, 1918, 1207, 1210, 1209, 1208, 1206, 1208, 1204, 1803,

1808, 1802, 1908, 1718, 1717, 1714, 1805, 1917, 1211,

1212, 1218, 1617, 1219, 1218, and 1215.

Sec. 23. District 22 is composed of Fort Bend Coun-

ty; that part of Brazoria County not included in dis-

Sec. 24. District 23 is composed of Atascosa, Bee,

DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe,

Karnes, LaSalle, Lavaca, Maverick, Medina, Webb,

Wilson, and Zavala Counties, and that part of Bexar

County included in census tracts 1619, 1620, 1612, 1618,

1610, 1611, 1512, 1520, 1521, 1518, 1511, 1514, 1516, 1518,

1519, 1522, 1416, 1415, 1418, 1417, 1414, 1413, 1419, 1812,

1318, 1814, 1310, 1309, 1815, 1205, 1214, 1217, 1216, 1317,

1316, 1818, 1517, 1615, and 1618.

Sec. 25. District 24 is composed of Denton County;

that part of Dallas County included in census tracts

15301, 153.02, 144, 141.04, 141.02, 154, 161, 141.01, 155,

160, 162, 156, 157, 159, 168, 158, 107, 67, 199, 65, 64, 45,

58, 52, 46, 47, 51, 50, 63.02, 62, 48, 54, 56, 49, 89, 55,

88, 86, 114.02, 87.01, 87.02, 57, 59.01, 59.02, 60.01, 63.01,

114.01, and 60.02, and that part of Tarrant County in-

cluded in census tracts 65.05, 181, 180, 218, 217.02,

217.01, 216.02, 216.01, 65.04, 65.01; 14.01, 65.02, 65.08,

14.08, 18, 216.08, 115.01, 115.02, 222, 228, 225, 224, 221,

220, 219, 229, 228, 227, 226, 115.08, 115.04, 114, 111.02,

60.08, 112.02, 112.01, and 113. ‘

' Sec. 26. The terms “census tract” and “census enu-

meration district,” as used in this Act, mean those geo-

graphic areas outlined and identified as such on of-

ficial place, county, and metropolitan map series maps

prepared by the United States Department of Com-

merce Bureau of the Census for the Nineteenth Dec-

nachos

ennial Census of the United States, enumerated as of

April 1, 1970. “Block groups” are subdivisions of cen-

sus tracts as defined on census metropolitan maps

which differentiate block groups by the first digit of

the block numbers assigned to city blocks within each

tract.

Sec. 27. The Texas Legislative Council shall furnish

to the Commissioners Court of each County which is

divided into two or more districts appropriate maps

showing census tract, census enumeration district, or

census block group lines to facilitate the identifica-

tion of district lines.

Sec. 28. Chapter 342, Acts of the 60th Legislature,

Regular Session, 1967 (Article 197c, Vernon’s Texas

Civil Statutes), is repealed.

Sec. 29. Nothing in this Act affects the tenure in

office of the present delegation in Congress, but this

Act takes effect for the general election in 1972.

Sec. 30. The importance of this legislation and the

crowded condition of the calendars in both Houses

create an emergency and an imperative public neces-

_ sity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be

read on three several days in each House be suspended,

and this Rule is hereby suspended.

Speaker of the House Lieutenant Governor

I hereby certify that S. B. No. 1 passed the Senate

on June 1, 1971, by a viva voce vote; June 2, 1971,

Senate refused to concur in House amendments and re-

quested appointment of Conference Committee; June

2, 1971, House granted request of the Senate; June 4,

_ mon

1971, Senate adopted Conference Report. by the follow-

ing vote: Yeas 17, Nays 9, and one paired vote.

Secretary of the Senate

I hereby certify that S. B. No. 1 passed the House

on June 2, 1971, with amendments, by the following

vote: Yeas 66, Nays 49; June 2, 1971, House granted

request of the Senate for appointment of Conference

Committee; June 4, 1971, House adopted Conference

report by the following vote: Yeas 80, Nays 58, and

one present not voting.

Chief Clerk of the House

Approved:

EXHIBIT B

PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

- DISTRICT 1 is composed of Bowie, _— Cass,

Cherokeet, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Harrison, Hen-

derson, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Panola, Red

River Rusk, San Augustine, Shelby, Titus, Upshur,

and Wood Counties; that part of Hunt County includ-

ed in the Lone Oak census county division; and that

part of Rains County included in the Emory census

county division.

DISTRICT 2 is composed of Anderson, Angelina,

Grimes, Hardin, Houston, Jasper, Leon, Liberty, Mad-

ison, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange,

Polk, Sabine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Walker

Counties, and all of Freestone County not included in

the Streetman Town part of the Wortham census

county division.

DISTRICT 3 is composed of that part of Collin

County included in the Nevada, Plano, and Wylie cen-

sus county divisions; that part of Denton County in-

cluded in the Lewisville census county division; and

that part of Dallas County included in census tracts

1, 2.01, 2.02, 3, 6.01, 7.02, 9, 11.01, 11.02, 71.01, 72,

73.01, 73.02, 74, 75.01, 75.02, 76.01, 76.02, 76.03,

76.04, 77, 78.01, 78.02, 78.03, 79.01, 79.02, 80, 81, 82,

94, 95, 96.01, 96.02, 96.03, 96.04, 97, 98, 99, 128, 129,

130.01, 130.02, 131, 1382, 133, 184.01, 134.02, 135,

136.01, 136.02, 136.08, 137.01, 137.02, 137.03, 137.04,

137.05, 138.01, 138.02, 139, 140.01, 140.02, 141.01,

141.02, 141.08, 142, 143, 146, 147, 185.02, 190.02,

190.04, 190.06, 191, 192.01, 192.02, 192.03, 192.04,

192.05, 192.06, 192.07, 193.01, 193.02, 194, 195.01,

il ais

195.02, 196, 197, and 198.

DISTRICT 4 is composed of Grayson, Gregg, Kauf-

man, Rockwall, Smith and Van Zandt Counties; that

part of Collin County not included in District 3; that

part of Cooke County included in the Gainesville North

Callisburg census county division; that part of Denton

County not include in District 3; that part of Hunt

County not included in District 1; and that part of

Rains County not included in District 1.

DISTRICT 5 is composed of that part of Dallas

County not included in District 3 or 6 or 24.

DISTRICT 6 is composed of Brazos, Ellis, Hill,

Johnson, Limestone, Navarro and Robertson Counties;

that part of Freestone County not included in District

2; that part of Parker County included in the Weath-

erford Southeast and the Weatherford Southwest cen-

sus county divisions; that part of Dallas County in-

cluded in census tracts 60.01, 60.02, 61, 63.01, 108,

109, 110,’111.01, 111.02, 164, 165.01, 165.02, 165.03,

165.04, 165.05, 166.01, 166.02, 166.03, 166.04, 167.02,

168, 169.01, 169.02, 169.03 and 169.04; and that part

of Tarrant County included in census tracts 60.03,

111.02, 112.01, 112.02, 108.03, 109, 54.01, 55.01, 54.02,

42.01, 48, 42.02, 48.01, 47, 56, 48.02, 55.02, 57.01, 58,

59, 60.02, 60.01, 110.02, 57.02, 55.03, 55.04 and 110.01.

DISTRICT 7 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 558, 557, 554, 553,

552, 556, 555, 551, 545, 550, 549, 548, 547, 546, 544,

587, 588, 541, 540, 452, 451, 543, 542, 529, 528, 527,

526, 519, 517, 443, 442, 441, 444, 447, 448, 450, 449,

446, 445, 440, 421, 406, 420, 422, 439, 438, 437, 436,

423, 419, 424, 435, 407, 409, 408, 411, 418, 417, 416,

iii

425, 426, 434, 429, 428, 427, 438, 431, 432, 333, 413

334, 536, and 430; and that part of census tract 405

included in census block group 5.

DISTRICT 8 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 559, 244, 245, 243

242, 535, 241, 533, 240, 223, 531, 532, 222, 224, 525,

524, 523, 522, 220, 218, 225, 217, 216, 215, 227, 521, |

229, 228, 230, 214, 203, 209, 213, 231, 212, 202, 210,

211, 232, 233, 321, 320, 322, 350, 351, 352, 354, 234

262, 261, 267, 268, 263, 265, 266, 270, 269, 271, 264,

361, 362, 273, 274, 272, 275, 364, 360, 363, 365, 530,

539, 534, 254 and 353.

DISTRICT 9 is composed of Chambers, Galveston

and Jefferson Counties and that part of Harris Coun-

ty included in census tracts 250, 249, 247, 238, 251,

248, 246, 252, 253, 237, 236, 256, 255, 257, 258, 235,

259, 260, 226 and 239.

DISTRICT 10 is composed of Austin, Bastrop,

Blanco, Burleson, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Travis and

Washington Counties; that part of Caldwell County

included in the Martindale census county division;

that part of Colorado County not included in the Gar-

wood census county division; that part of Gonzales

County included in the Waelder census county divi-

sion; that part of Lavaca County included in the Moul-

ton and Shiner census county divisions; that part of

Waller County not included in the Brookshire. census

county division; and that part of Williamson County

included in the Florence, Georgetown, Jarrell and Lib-

BR Any Hill census county divisions.

DISTRICT 11 is composed of Bell, Bosque, Brown,

Burnet, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Hood, Lampasas,

tees

McCulloch, McLennan, Milam, Mills, San Saba, and

Somervell Counties; that part of Coleman County not

included in the Coleman census county division; that

part of Comanche County included in the Gustine cen-

sus county division; that part of Erath County includ-

ed in the Stephenville South census county division;

and that part of Williamson County not included in

District 10.

DISTRICT 12 is composed of that part of Tarrant

County not included in District 6 or 24.

DISTRICT 13 is composed of Archer, Armstrong,

Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Clay, Collingsworth, Cot-

tle, Dallam, Dickens, Donley, Foard, Gray, Hall, Hans-.

ford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson,

King, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham,

Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler,

Wichita and Wilbarger Counties.

DISTRICT 14 is composed of Aransas, Calhoun,

Jackson, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio,

Victoria and Wharton Counties; that part of Colorado

County not included in District 10; and that part of

Lavaca County not included in District 10.

DISTRICT 15 is composed of Brooks, Cameron, Du-

val, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg,

Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata Coun-

ties; that part of Bee County included in the Pettus-

Pawnee census county division; and that part of

Karnes County included in the Kenedy census county

division.

DISTRICT 16 is composed of Culberson El Paso,

Hudspeth, Loving, Presidio, Ward and Winkler Coun-

poe Eee

ties; that part of Jeff Davis County including the Val-

entine census county division; that part of Reeves

County included in the Pecos census county division;

and that part of Ector County not included in Dis

trict 19.

DISTRICT 17 is composed of Baylor, Borden Calla-

han, Crosby, Eastland, Fisher, Floyd, Garza, Haskell,

Howard, Jack, Jones, Kent, Knox, Lynn, Mitchell,

Montague, Nolan, Palo Pinto, Scurry, Shackelford,

Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wise and

Young Counties; that part of Coleman County not in-

cluded in District 11; that part of Comanche County

not included in District 11; that part of Cooke County

not included in District 4; that part of Dawson Coun-

ty included in the Lamesa Southeast census county

division; that part of Erath County not included in

District 11; and that part of Parker County not in-

cluded in District 6.

DISTRICT 18 is composed of that part of Harris

County not include in District 7 or 8 or 9 or 22.

DISTRICT 19 is composed of Andrews, Bailey, Cas-

tro, Cochran, Deaf Smith, Gaines, Hale, Hockley,

Lamb, Lubbock, Martin, Midland, Parmer, Terry and

Yoakum Counties; that part of Dawson County not

included in District 17; and that part of Ector County

included in census tracts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 24

and 25.

DISTRICT 20 is composed of that part of Bexar

County not included in District 21 or 23.

DISTRICT 21 is composed of Bandera, Brewster,

Coke, Comal, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Edwards, Gil-

lespie, Glasscock, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Llano,

Mason, Menard, Pecos, Reagan, Real, Runnels,

Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Terrell, Tom Green, Up-

ton, and Val Verde Counties; that part of Jeff Davis

County not included in District 16; that part of Me-

dina County in the D’Harris and Hondo census county

divisions; that part of Reeves County not included in

District 16; and that part of Bexar County included

in census tracts 1719, 1720, 1816, 1817, 1806, 1807,

1815, 1821, 1820, 1819, 1915, 1916, 1914, 1818, 1814,

1809, 1810, 1811, 1813, 1812, 1911, 1912, 1909, 19138,

1207, 1210, 1209, 1208, 1206, 1208, 1204, 1803, 1808,

1802, 1908, 1718, 1717, 1714, 1805, 1917, 1211, 1212,

1218, 1617, 1219, 1218, and 1215.

DISTRICT 22 is composed of Brazoria and Fort

Bend Counties; that part of Waller County not includ-

ed in District 10; and that part of Harris County in-

cluded in census tracts 412, 414, 415, 331, 332, 329,

866, 339, 340, 335, 338, 336, 837, 341, 348, 342, 319,

825, 326, 824, 410, 355, 356, 349, 357, 358, 348, 359,

347, 346, 345, 370, 367, 369, 368, 373, 374, 371, 372,

375, 327, 323, and 344.

DISTRICT 23 is composed of Atascosa, DeWitt,

Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Guadalupe, Kinney, LaSalle,

Maverick, Uvalde, Webb, Wilson and Zavala Counties ;

that part of Bee County not in District 15; that part

of Caldwell County not in District 10; that part of

Gonzales County not in District 10; that part of

Karnes County not in District 15; that part of Medina

County not in District 21; and that part of Bexar

County included in census tracts 1619, 1620, 1612,

1618, 1610, 1611, 1512, 1520, 1521, 1513, 1511, 1514,

1516, 1518, 1519, 1522, 1416, 1415, 1418, 1417, 1414,

1418, 1419, 1312, 1818, 1314, 1810, 1309, 1315, 1205,

1214, 1217, 1216, 1817, 1816, 1318, 1517, 1615, 1618

and 1508.

DISTRICT 24 is composed of that part of Dallas

County included in census tracts 20, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,

46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59.01,

59.02, 62, 68.02, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 86, 87.01, 87.02, 88,

89, 101, 102, 108, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 118, 114.01,

114.02, 141.04, 144, 145, 151, 152, 153.01, 153.02, 154,

155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167.01 and

199; and that part of Tarrant County included in cen-

sus tracts 135.01, 64, 65.05, 131, 130, 218, 217.02,

217.01, 216.02, 216.01, 65.04, 65.02, 65.08, 18, 216.08,

115.01, 115.02, 222, 228, 224, 224, 221, 220, 219, 229,

228, 227, 226, 115.08, 115.04, 114 and 118.

The terms “census tract” and “census county divi-

sion” mean those geographic areas outlined and iden-

tified as such on official place, county, and metropoli-

tan map series maps prepared by the United States

Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census for

the Nineteenth Decennial Census of the United States,

enumerated as of April 1, 1970. The pepulation figures

for counties and census county divisions are those

published January, 1971, in the United States Depart-

ment of Commerce publication PC (VI)—45 Texas,

1970 Census of Population, advance report, Final Pop-

ulation Counts. “Block groups” are subdivisions of

census tracts as defined on census metropolitan maps

which differentiate block groups by the first digit of

the block numbers assigned to city blocks within each

tract.

EXHIBIT C

-PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

DISTRICT 1 is composed of Bowie, Camp, Cass,

Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Harrison, Hopkins,

Lamar, Marion, Morris, Rains, Red River, Rockwall,

Titus, Upshur and Wood Counties; and all of Hunt

County not included in the Celeste census county divi-

DISTRICT 2 is composed of Angelina, Brazos,

Grimes, Hardin, Houston, Jasper, Liberty, Madison,

Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, Robertson, Sa-

bine, San Augustine, San Jacinot, Trinity, Tyler, and

Walker Counties; and that part of Leon County in-

cluded in the Centerville and Oakwood census county

DISTRICT 3 is composed of that part of the city of

Richardson in the Plano census county division of

Collin County, and that part of Dallas County in-

cluded in census tracts 1, 2.01, 2.02, 3, 6.01, 6.02, 7.02,

9, 10, 11.01, 11.02, 12, 14; 71.01, 72, 73.01, 73.02, 74,

%.01, 75.02, 76.01, 76.02, 76.03, 76.04, 77, 78.01, 78.02,

78.03, 79.01; 79.02, 80, 81, 82, 94, 95, 96.01, 96.02,

96.08, 96.04, 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, 130.01, 130.02, 131,

182, 133, 134.01, 134.02, 135, 1386.01, 186.02, 136.03,

137.01, 137.02, 187.08, 137.04, 137.05, 138.01, 138.02,

189, 140.01, 140.02, 141.01, 141.02, 141.08, 141.04,

143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 185.02, 190.02, 190.08, 190.04,

191, 192.01, 192.02, 192.03, 192.04, 192.05, 192.06,

192.07, 193.01, 193.02 194, 195.01, 195.02, 196, 197

and 198.

DISTRICT 4 is composed of Anderson, Cherokee,

anit

Freestone, Gregg, Henderson, Kaufman, Nacogdoches,

Navarro, Panola, Rusk, Shelby, Smith and Van Zandt

Counties; and that part of Leon County not included

in District 2.

DISTRICT 5 is composed of that part of Dallas

County not included in District 3 or 24.

DISTRICT 6 is composed of Hood and Johnson

Counties; and that part of Tarrant County included

‘in census tracts 13, 14.01, 14.03, 16, 19, 23.01, 24.01,

24.02, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36.01, 36.02,

37.01, 37.02, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.01, 42.02, 48, 44, 45.01,

45.02, 45.08, 46.01, 46.02, 46.08, 46.04, 46.05, 47,

48.01, 48.02, 51, 52, 53, 54.01, 54.02, 55.01, 55.02,

55.08, 55.04, 56, 57.01, 57.02, 58, 59, 60.01, 60.02,

60.03, 61.01, 61.02, 62, 63, 64, 65.01, 65.02, 65.03,

65.04, 65.05, 108.01, 108.02, 108.03, 109, 110.01, 110.02,

111.01, 111.02, 112.01, 112.02, 118, 114, 115.01, 115.02,

115.08, 115.04, 130, 131, 216.01, 216.02, 216.03, 217.01,

217.02, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226,

227, 228 and 229.

DISTRICT 7 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 558, 557,

552, 556, 555, 551, 545, 550, 549

537, 588, 541, 540, 452, 45

526, 519, 517, 448, 442, 441,

446, 445, 440, 421, 406, 420,

428, 419, 424, 485, 407, 409, 408, 411, 418, 417, 416,

425, 426, 434, 429, 428, 427, 433,

834, 586, and 430; and that part of census tract 405

included in census block group 5.

Bite

DISTRICT 8 is composed of that part of Harris

County included in census tracts 559, 244, 245, 243,

» 216, 215, 227,

, 281, 212, 202,

822, 350, 351, 352, 354,

266, 270, 269, 271,

DISTRICT 10 is composed of Austin, Bastrop,

Blanco, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Travis, and Wash-

ington Counties; that part of Guadalupe County in-

cluded in the Seguin East, Seguin North, and Seguin

Southwest

census county divisions; that part of La-

vaca County included in the Moulton and Shiner cen-

sus county divisions ; all of Waller County not included

in the Brookshire census county division; all of Colo-

rado County not included in the Garwood census

county division; and all of Gonzales not included in

the Nixon census county division.

DISTRICT 11 is composed of Bell, Bosque, Burle-

son, Burnett, Coryell, Falls, Hamilton, Lampasas, Lee,

Limestone, McLennan, Milam, Mills, Somervell and

Wiliamson Counties; that part of Brown County in-

cluded in the Brookesmith census county division ; and

that part of San Saba County included in the San Saba

North census county division.

DISTRICT 12 is composed of Cooke and Denton

Counties; that part of Collin County not included in

— on

District 3, that part of Tarrant County not included

in District 6, and that part of Hunt County not in-

cluded in District 1.

DISTRICT 13 is composed of Armstrong, Bailey,

Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Collingworth, Cot- .

tle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley,

Floyd, Foard, Gray, Hale, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman,

Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lamb,

Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer,

Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Stonewall, Swish-

er and Wheeler Counties; that part of Knox County

not included in District 17, that part of Haskell Coun-

ty not included in District 17, and that part of Hock-

ley County not included in District 19.

DISTRICT 14 is composed of Aransas, Calhoun,

_ Jackson, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugia, San Patricio,

Victoria and Wharton Counties; that part of Colorado

County not included in District 10; and that part of

Lavaca County not included in District 10.

DISTRICT 15 is composed of Brooks, Cameron,

Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kle-

berg, Live Oak, McMullen, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata

Counties; that part of Bee County included in the

Pettus-Pawnee census county division; and that part

of Karnes County included in the Kenedy census coun-

ty division.

DISTRICT 16 is composed of Brewster, Crane, Cul-

berson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Pecos,

Presidio, Reeves, Terrell, Val Verde, Ward, and Wink-

ler Counties.

DISTRICT 17 is composed of Archer, Baylor, Cal-

lahan, Clay, Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Jack, Jones,

Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker, Sheckelford, Stephens,

Taylor, Throckmorton, Wichita, Wilbarger, Wise and

Young Counties; that part of Haskell County included

in the Hasket and Weinert census county divisions,

and that part of Knox County included in the Goree

census county division.

DISTRICT 18 is composed of that part of Harris

County not included in District 7 or 8 or 9 or 22.

DISTRICT 19 is composed of Andrews, Borden,

Cochran, Dawson, Ector, Gaines, Garza, Howard,

Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Midland, Terry, Upton and

Yoakum Counties; and that part of Hockley County

included in the Ropesville census county division.

_ DISTRICT 20 is composed of that part of Bexar

County included in census tracts 1106, 1107, 1203,

1204, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1218,

1219, 1601, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1614, 1615, 1616,

1617, 1618, 1619, 1701, 1702, 1708, 1704, 1705, 1706,

1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1718, 1714, 1715,

1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804,

1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813,

1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1901,

1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912,

1918, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917.

_ DISTRICT 21 is composed of Bandera, Coke, Cole-

man, Comal, Concho, Crockett, Dimmit, Edwards,

Fisher, Frio, Gillespie, Glasscock, Irion, Kendall, Kerr,

Kimble, Kinney, LaSalle, Llano, Mason, Maverick,

McCulloch, Medina, Menard, Mitchell, Nolan, Reagan,

Real, Runnels, Schleicher, Scurry, Sterling, Sutton,

Tom Green, Uvalde, Webb and Zavala Counties; that

part of Brown County not include in District 11, that

part of San Saba County not included in District 11

and that part of Atacosa County not included in Dis-

trict 23.

DISTRICT 22 is composed of Brazoria and Fort

Bend Counties; that part of Waller County not in-

cluded in District 10; and that part of Harris County

included in census tracts 412, 414, 415, 831, 332, 329,

366, 339, 340, 335, 338, 336, 337, 841, 843, 342, 319,

325, 326, 324, 410, 355, 356, 349, 357, 358, 348, 359,

347, 346, 345, 370, 367, 369, 368, 378, 374, 371, 372,

375, 327, 323 and 344.

DISTRICT 23 is composed of Dewitt, Goliad and

Wilson Counties; that part of Bee County not included

in District 15; that part of Karnes County not in-

cluded,in District 15; that part of Guadalupe County

not included in District 10; that part of Atacosa Coun-

ty included in the Poteet census county division; that

part of Gonzales County not included in District 10;

and that part of Bexar County not included in Dis-

trict 20.

DISTRICT 24 is composed of Ellis and Hill Coun-

ties and that part of Dallas County included in census

tracts 4.01, 4.02, 4.08, 5, 7.01, 20, 41, 42, 48, 44, 45,

46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 58, 54, 56, 57, 59.01, 59.02, 60.01,

60.02, 61, 62, 63.01, 63.02, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71.02,

100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,

111.01, 111.02, 112, 118, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,

153.01, 153.02, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,

162, 163, 164, 165.01, 165.02, 165.03, 165.04, 165.05,

166.01, 166.02, 166.03, 166.04, 167.01, 168, 169.01,

169.02, 169.03, 169.04 and 199.

nates

(Title Omitted in printing)

STIPULATIONS

[Filed, January 19, 1972]

It is agreed and stipulated by and between the

counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant as

follows: ‘

1. That if CLYDE HAYNES were present in

court and under oath, he would and could testify that

he is and was during the regular and special sessions

of the 62nd Legislature of the State of Texas a resi-

dent of Vidor in Orange County, Texas and was the

duly elected representative for House District #8.

2. That if CHARLES WILSON were present in

court and under oath, he would and could testify that

he is and was during the regular and special sessions

of the 62nd Legislature of the State of Texas a resi-

dent of Lufkin in Angelina County, Texas and was the

duly elected representative for Senatorial District #3.

8. That these stipulations may be offered in evi-

dence for all purposes upon the trial hereof.

IT IS SO AGREED and STIPULATED this 19th

day of January, 1972.

_ Respectfully submitted,

FISCHMAN, ROSENBERG, KASMIR

& PRESTON

Lawrence Fischman

ill cis

601 Kirby Building

1509 Main Street

Dallas, Texas 75201 744-5511

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CRAWFORD MARTIN,

Attorney General

James Quick

Attorneys for Defendant

(Title Omitted in printing)

MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF

[Filed, January 20, 1972]

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Conies*tiowVAN HENRY ARCHER, JR., individ-

ually and as Chairman of the Bexar County Republi-

can Party, M. O. TURNER, MRS. LOIS WHITE,

RICHARDSON B. GILL, MRS. MARY LOUISE

PINO and MRS. MARY MARTIN JACKSON, here-

inafter styled Plaintiff-Interveners, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated, comprising

the class, and move for leave to intervene as a Plain-

tiff as provided for in Rule 24 (a.) and (b.) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to assert

the claim set forth in their proposed complaint, of

which a copy is hereto attached, on the grounds that

the representation of the Applicants’ interests by

existing parties is, or may be, inadequate and the Ap-

licant is, or may be, bound by a judgment in the action.

NATHAN W. EASON

J. DouGLaAs McGuIRE

400 Alamo National Building

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Attorneys for

Van Henry Archer, Jr.,

individually and as Chairman

of the Bexar County Republican

Party, et al

Applicants for Intervention

onl isin

(Title Omitted in printing)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

[Filed, January 22, 1972]

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes VAN HENRY ARCHER, JR., individ-

ually and as Chairman of the Bexar County Republi-

can ‘Party, M. 0. TURNER, MRS. LOIS WHITE,

RICHARDSON B. GILL, MRS. MARY LOUISE

PINO and MRS. MARY MARTIN JACKSON, here-

inafter styled Plaintiff-Interveners, on behalf of them-

selves and others similarly situated, comprising the

class hereinafter defined, and complaining of the

HONORABLE BOB BULLOCK, in his capacity as

Secretary of State of the State of Texas, hereinafter

called Defendant, would, for cause of action, respect-

fully show:

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENERS

(1.) Plaintiff-Intervener, VAN HENRY ARCHER,

JR., is a resident of the State of Texas and resides in

the County of Bexar in said state at 218 West Lyn-

wood Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, and is a duly reg-

istered and qualified voter in said county and state.

The aforesaid Plaintiff-Intervener is the duly elected

Chairman of the Bexar County Republican Party, a

political party existing under and by virtue of the

_ Jaws of the State of Texas.

(2.) The Plaintiff-Intervener, M. O. TURNER, is

a resident of the State of Texas and resides in the

£r

County of Bexar in said state, with address at 109

Laburnum, San Antonio, Texas, and is a duly regis-

tered and qualified voter.

(3.) The Plaintiff-Intervener, MRS. LOIS WHITE,

is a resident of the State of Texas and resides in the

County of Bexar in said state, with address at 1302

Dawson Street, San Antonio, Texas, in said county,

and is a duly registered and qualified voter.

(4.) The Plaintiff-Intervener, RICHARDSON B.

GILL, is a resident of the State of Texas and resides

in the County of Bexar in said state, with address at

309 Encino, San Antonio, Texas, in said county, and

is a duly registered and qualified voter.

'(6.) The Plaintiff-Intervener, MRS. MARY

LOUISE PINO, is a resident of the State of Texas

and resides in the County of Bexar in said state, with

address at 400 South Mesquite, San Antonio, Texas,

in said county, and is a duly registered and qualified

voter.

(6.) The Plaintiff-Intervener, MRS. MARY MOR-

TON JACKSON, is a resident of the State of Texas

and resides in the County of Bexar in said state, with

address at 311 South St. Mary’s Street, San Antonio,

Texas, in said county, and is a duly registered and

qualified voter.

II.

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff-Interveners brings this action on their own

behalf, and pursuant to Rule 28 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all other persons sim-

ilarly situated. The members of the class similarly

situated are all those individuals who are duly quali-

fied and registered voters of the State of Texas who

reside in Bexar County, and are qualified and duly

registered to vote in United States Congressional Dis-

tricts 20, 21 & 28 in elections for the United States

House of Representatives in said districts. The re

quirements of Rule 23 are met in that the class is s

numerous that joinder of all members is impractical;

~ there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

the claims of the representative party are typical of

the claims of the class; the representative parties will

fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class;

and the parties opposing the class have acted on

grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby mak-

ing appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief

with respect to the class as a whole.

The Defendant, BOB BULLOCK, is the duly quali-

fied and acting Secretary of State of the State of

Texas. That by the provisions of Article 1.03 of the

Texas Election Code (Acts. 60th Leg., Ch. 723, p.

1860 §3, 1967) he is, by virtue of his office, the chief

election officer of the State of Texas and is charged

with the duly, inter alia, of “. . . obtain(ing) and

maintain(ing) uniformity in the application, opera-

tion and interpretation of the election laws.” Said

Defendant may be served at his offices in the State

Capitol Building in Austin, Texas.

That pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2284,

Notice of hearings in this suit must be given to the

HONORABLE PRESTON SMITH, Governor of the

State of Texas, at his office or official residence in Aus-

tin, Texas, and to the HONORABLE CRAWFORD

MARTIN, Attorney General of the State of Texas, at

his office in Austin, Texas.

III.

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff-Interveners, on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated, sue to have the Texas statute

establishing congressional districts for the State of

Texas (S.B. 1, Acts 62nd Leg., 1971) declared viola-

tive of Article 1 §2 of the United States Constitution

and of the XIVth Amendment, §§ 1 & 2 to the United

States Constitution, and to enjoin its enforcement and

the conduct of elections thereunder. Thus,~ this Court

has jurisdiction, sitting as a three-judge Court under

Title 28 of the U. S. Code, §1343 and §2281.

IV.

Plaintiff-Interveners adopt all of paragraph III. of

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, including Exhibit A

for reference, with the exception of sub-paragraphs

H., L, J. and K., to all intent and purposes as if the

same were copied in these pleadings verbatim.

Plaintiff-Interveners adopt all of paragraph IV. of

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, except the last sen-

tence of sub-paragraphs A. and B., as if the same were

copied in these pleadings verbatim.

VI.

Plaintiff-Interveners adopt all of Paragraph V. of

aon

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, except that portion of

paragraph III, to-wit: H., L, J. and K., as if the same

were copied in these pleadings verbatim.

VIL.

Plaintiff-Interveners adopt all of the allegations of

paragraph VI. of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ex-

cept sub-paragraph 8., as if the same were copied in

these pleadings verbatim.

VIII.

That Plaintiff-Interveners further allege that S.B.

1 affects the voters in Districts 20, 21 and 28 as pres-

ently constituted, and that in Congressional Districts

21 and 23, which are combined with various outlying

counties, the voters of said districts have, by this plan,

been denied equal participation in the political pro-

cesses and such plan tends to cancel out or dilute their

votes. Further, that Congressional Districts 21 and

23 of S.B. 1 lack the constitutional requirements of

compactness-and community of interest between the

various voters of such districts. ,

That S.B. 1 as drawn aid pened ‘tn-alfent alves a

“safe district” to the present incumbent congressman

in Congressional District 20 by creating such district

from the core of Bexar County which, in‘effect, causes

the overage to be then placed within Congressional

Districts 21 and 23. That said plan thereby leaves

Bexar County, with a population of 880,000 plus, with

only one congressman when, in fact, had the legisla-

ture followed the proper constitutional guidelines,

Bexar County would, in all probability, elect two

United States Congressmen. The total effect of said

— ee

plan then is depriving the whole of Bexar County of

proper congressional representation and particularly

those areas of Bexar County placed in Congressional

Districts 21 and 23 by S.B. 1.

That Plaintiff-Interveners herein submit herewith

a Congressional Redistricting Plan, Exhibit A-1, if

this Court finds Senate Bill 1 unconstitutional, which

we feel is a fair, equitable and just plan. Unlike the

other plans submitted by Plaintiffs herein (Plaintiff’s

Exhibits B and C), and unlike Senate Bill 1, Plaintiff-

Interveners’ plan does not cross any county lines in

the state except the necessary division of the metro-

politan areas containing more population than neces-

sary to elect one congressman. Plaintiff-Interveners’

plan allows for a deviation of only two per cent and

that said plan is offered to the Court for consideration

by the Court if S.B. 1 should be declared unconstitu-

tional in hopes of the Court’s adoption of said plan

or aiding in the redrafting of a Constitutional Plan.

ADDITION TO PRAYER

That in addition those portions of the prayer (para-

“graph VI.) adopted by Plaintiff-Interveners herein

from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff-Inter-

veners pray that Congressional Districts 20, 21 and

28, as contained in the plan submitted by Plaintiff-

Interveners, be adopted by this Court and, if not

adopted, be considered by this Court in its redrafting

of S.B.-1, which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Respectfully submitted,

NATHAN W. EASON

—

J. DOUGLAS MCGUIRE

400 Alamo National Building

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Attorneys for

Plaintiff-Interveners

[Attachments to this pleading omitted and not

relevant to this appeal]

(Title Omitted in printing)

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

[Filed, January 24, 1972; signed, January 21, 1972]

On the 7th day of December, 1971, and again on the

14th day of January, 1972, pursuant to an Order of

the Court, a pretrial conference was held in the above

styled and numbered cause before the undersigned

Judge at Dallas, Texas.

Appearing for the Plaintiffs was the firm of FISCH-

MAN, ROSENBERG, KASMIR & PRESTON, of

Dallas, Texas, by Messrs. LAWRENCE FISCHMAN

and DAVID H. ROSENBERG. Appearing for the De-

fendant was the Honorable CRAWFORD MARTIN,

Attorney General of the State of Texas by Messrs.

JAMES QUICK and SAM McDANIEL.

Based upon the pleadings, depositions, briefs and

arguments of counsel at said pre-trial conference, it

is ORDERED AND DETERMINED:

(1) PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS:

(a) Plaintiffs claim that the congressional dis-

pect, contiguous and'es nearly equal in

con and as near in

pulation as is practicable; and, there-

ore, said statute violates on its face

Article 1 §2 of the United States Constitu-

tion. Thus, Plaintiffs contend, that they

and others similarly situated are deprived -

of their constitutional rights to have their

_ count for as much as every other

voter.

(b) Plaintiffs contend that the legislature, by

S.B. 1, did not make a faith

aot to establishd districts which meet

the requirements of Article 1 §2 of the

United States Constitution that such dis-

tricts be as compact, contiguous and as

we equal in population as is practi-

(2) DEFENDANT’S DEFENSES:

(a) The Defendant contends that the congres-

sional districts established by S.B. 1 are

as compact, contiguous and pe

equal as practicable, representing a good

faith effort on the part of the 62nd Lepis

lature of the State of Texas to com 2 oe

the requirements of Article 1 §

United States Constitution.

(b) The Defendant further contends that such

deviations as are found in S.B. 1 are con-

stitutionally permissible as a practical

i ce for the growth and

decline of tions within the 24 con-

gressional icts in Texas.

(3) CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW:

(a) In eine ke of congressional redis-

et a legislature consider as a

fector’ the 1 S hevine't pi one onee ar

congressman run an-

other? If so, to what extent?

(b) in Seeing % pose Ct ccugseppional redis

tri ture consider “so-

cial”, “economic” and “cultural” factors!

If 80, to what extent?

aw 7G a

tricting, to what extent may the legisla-

ture consider geo-political boundaries?

(4) That a trial on the merits of this cause will be

held on January 21, 1972.

(5) IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE-

CREED that this action be heard before a three (3)

judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2281.

(6) IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE-

CREED that the Defendant’s demand for a jury trial

be, and the same is hereby, denied.

(7) It appearing to the Court that the Plaintiffs

have brought this suit as a class action under Rule 23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of

themselves and all other qualified voters, registered

and unregistered, within the several districts wherein

the respective individual Plaintiffs reside, as well as

all other qualified voters in all other congressional

districts in the State of Texas; and it further appear-

ing to the Court that the number of persons compris-

ing the class so defined is so numerous as to make it

impossible to bring them before the Court; and it fur-

ther appearing that the Plaintiffs, as qualified and

registered voters, are fairly representative of the class

as so defined; it is, therefore, ORDERED, AD-

JUDGED AND DECREED that this action is prop-

etly brought by the Plaintiffs as a class action

pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure and may proceed and be prosecuted as such.

(8) It is ORDERED that this case shall be tried on

the pleadings, depositions, exhibits, agreed testimony,

affidavit(s), and stipulations.

(9) It is ORDERED that each side shall have one

hour of oral argument before the Court; with Plain-

tiff to have forty (40) minutes to open and twenty

(20) minutes for rebuttal.

(10) It is ORDERED that the following exhibits

be, and they are hereby, admitted into evidence for all

purposes: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, 1-A, 1-B; 2, 2-A, 2-B;

3, 3-A, 3-B; 4, 4-A; 5, 5-A, 5-B; 6, 6-A, 6-B; 7; and

8; Defendant’s Exhibit 1; 2, 2-A, 2-B; and 3.

(1) It is agreed by counsel for both parties, and so

Ordered by the Court, that all depositions taken or to

be taken herein may be filed without the signature of

the witness, with the same force and effect as though

all prerequisites and formalities had been complied

with.

(12) The Court finds and determines that it has

jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of

this suit. 2

DATED at Dallas, Texas, this 21st day of January,

1972.

8 /

ROBERT M. HILL

United States District Judge

Approved:

FISCHMAN, ROSENBERG, KASMIR & PRESTON

601 Kirby Building

1509 Main Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

744-5511

ini sis

By:

Lawrence Fischman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CRAWFORD MARTIN, Attorney General

State of Texas

James Quick

Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant

Oral Deposition of

Gus Franklin Mutscher

(P. 2)

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION of GUS FRANK.

LIN MUTSCHER, a witness produced on behalf of

the Plaintiffs, taken in the above styled and num-

bered cause on the 1st day of December, A.D., 1971,

before JAN STROUD, a Notary Public and certified

shorthand reporter in and for Dallas County, Texas,

_in the offices of CLAYTON, FRIDAY, FRIEDMAN

AND BURROUGS located at 900 West Avenue, in the

City of Austin, County of Travis and State of Texas,

in accordance with the agreement hereinafter set

forth.

see

; (P. 21)

BY MR. FISCHMAN:

Q Did you also invite inquiry or comment by any

incumbent congressman or any member of the staff

of an incumbent congressman?

A My chairman would be in a much better position

to testify to that rather than myself. I don’t remember

it as one of my guidelines. I think I may on a visit

with a congressman, or whether in Washington or

through a letter of my staff, may have mentioned to

them that this would be a major problem in the sense

of the Legislature and if they had any feelings or any

of their friends who were constituents of theirs had

any feelings, we would certainly welcome any con-

ments that they would like to make concerning re-

apportionment.

*¢es

(P. 28)

Q Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, of any other ef-

forts on the part of the committee to ascertain the

views of the incumbent congressional delegation or

incumbent members of the delegation, I should say?

A Yes, I think that we had a chairman and sev-

eral members of his subcommittee, may have had a—

a—had a trip to Washington and probably attended

the Texas luncheon, delegation luncheons that they

frequently have and this gave them an opportunity to

talk about redistricting, gave them an opportunity to

submit some of their ideas and their plans.

Q Well, in point of fact, Mr. Speaker, that was

the purpose of the trip, was it not, to meet with. the

congressional delegation and ascertain their views on

how possibly the district should be drawn?

A I think that’s—I think that’s the way Chairman

Jones has stated it and I don’t know who went. I don’t

recall who went with him, but I do know that they—

(P. 24)

Q Did Chairman Jones report to you after that

trip to tell you, whether officially or unofficially, what

transpired?

A No more than the, that I recall, the general

statement that the—that most of the members of

Congress were pleased with an opportunity to present

their feelings and that many of the congressmen were

going to spend some time in assisting and trying to

draft proposals as to how their recommendations

might run.

Q Now, Mr. Speaker, do you recall, other than the

statement that you alluded to awhile ago, the chal-

lenge that you gave to the committee, giving them any

other instructions on what factors, if any, they were

to consider in drawing the congressional districts?

A I don’t think I reduced anything to writing in

the form of any statement or addressed them any

other time in the committee as a whole than at its

et ian

opening meeting. I have always felt that—and could

very easily have mentioned to some of the committee

members—that community of interests should be a

factor, compactness, trying to minimize the crossing

of county lines, but—

*¢¢

(P. 25)

Q The three that you listed, that is, community of

interests, compactness and attempting, insofar as pos-

sible, to maintain the integrity of county lines?

A That is correct. And of course, always keeping

in mind that number one was the federal case law ‘in

one man, one vote and the—and the tolerance factor.

*e¢s

(P. 31)

Q Now, you have already indicated to me, Mr.

Speaker, that you have studied the applicable federal

cases and that you have had considerable experience

in the problems of redistricting because of your prior

service. And based on your knowledge and experience,

Mr. Speaker,-would you tell me what you meant when

you referred to this tolerance factor awhile ago as

being one of the elements that you may have infor-

mally communicated to members of the committee that

they should consider in drafting the bill?

A Well, when the emphasis was placed on one

man, one vote, the tolerance factor, the way I see it,’

is—is the grouping of congressional districts or the

forming of congressional districts all of basically the

same size on a population basis with only slight devia-

tions. And that deviation,

(P. 82)

of course, is referred to as a tolerance factor, because

from a legislative point of view, it seems to be imprac-

tical or impossible to make them all of the—of the

same number.

(P. 34)

Q Do you know what constitutes a reasonable

tolerance? :

A I don’t—I couldn’t reduce it to an exact figure,

no, sir. 4

Q And to the best of your knowledge—excuse me.

Go ahead, Sir.

A Well, I have in mind that we have studied cases

maybe where the—where there’s six per cent deviation

and the courts may have upheld that case. So we may

can presume from that point of view that this would

be an acceptable tolerance mark. But here again, this

could shift, so I don’t—I don’t know. I don’t want to

- (P. 35)

pinpoint it to a figure, because I don’t know of one.

Q Was this, also, your view, Sir, during the session

of the Legislature just passed, that you have — artic-

ulated to me?

A Yes, sir.

Q And did you also make this view known to the

members of the committee and to the members of the

House, either officially or on an informal basis?

A Yes. This would reflect my feeling.

Q And would it be your understanding that this,

except for one or two or possibly more exceptions,

would this have generally been understood by the

House to have been a correct application of the law?

A That is correct.

-Q Would one of the factors, Mr. Speaker, that

would be considered validly in re-apportionment be

maintenance of the integrity of existing districts inso-

far as possible?

A This point has been mentioned.

Q By whon, Sir?

A I have heard it argued by House wnecamcaens on

the floor of the House. I have heard

} (P. 36)

some committee members make reference to it. I don’t

think it Was given any priority as high as any of the

other points that I previously mentioned.

Q Well, what I have said was a euphemistic way

of saying that it was the desire or consensus of the

House, so far as you knew, that you wanted to pre

serve the districts of all incumbents; was that nota

factor?

A I would say it had to be—it was a factor that—

a factor that was considered, yes.

Q Would you say that these factors were consid-

ered in different degrees of importance or were they

all considered pretty much on an equal plane?

A I wasn’t really that close to the drafting of the

plan, so I—I—I really can’t testify as to the mag—the

strength that each one of these elements was given by

the—by the committee.

(P. 40)

Q I’m going to ask the question another way. One

of the factors, Mr. Speaker, that was considered was

to prevent, as much as possible, the pitting of one -

incumbent against another, is that correct?

(P. 41)

A Yes, that is correct.

ses

Q (continuing by Mr. Fischman) It was an im-

portant enough factor, wasn’t it, Mr. Speaker, for

Chairman Jones and some other members of the con-

- mittee to make a special trip to Washington; I believe

we have already established that, haven’t we?

(P. 42) )

A That is correct.

cee ae

*¢¢#

: (P. 48)

Q You indicated awhile ago, Mr. Speaker, that you

didn’t have much personal knowledge of how the bills

were actually drafted; is that correct?

A Well, I was under the impression

(P. 44)

from some degree of experience that congressional re-

apportionment would be drawn by—by a conference

committee. The pattern under the rules of the House,

the House draws, generally, it’s the House redistrict-

ing. In the Senate, it’s the—. The House draws the

House redistricting bill. The Senate generally drafts

the Senate re-apportionment. And the congressional

bill is generally a conference report, because the Sen-

ate will usually draw one version and the House will

draw another version. It’s just the practical aspect of

the process.

Q Would you elaborate on that a little bit further,

Mr. Speaker?

first regular session. So congressional redistricting

was one of the items to consider in the first called spe-

_ Lr

Seis ee es |

cial session.

And here again, the Senate passed a version that we

amended. We went to conference. And the bill that was

finally passed by both houses was a plan that was

signed by the conference members.

* * *

A No, sir. To one—one qualifying extent. It was

one time when the House conferees and Senate con-

ferees seemed to be on a complete deadlock and the

Lieutenant Governor had met with the conferees and

I was called to visit with the conferees and try to

resolve a practical problem; that does exist in confer.

ence. And this was resolved and then the conferees

resumed their work.

Q What was that, Sir?

A It was probably the more publicized adjusting

of counties ‘in the East Texas area. It

(P. 46)

was a practical situation that existed. I had Clyde

Haynes, who was my chairman of labor, from Orange,

was one of my conferees. The Lieutenant Governor

had Senator Wilson, Senator Patman, Senator Hall

and Senator Jordan and all four of those was over in

this East Texas area. And they had one version and

Clyde Haynes had—Representative Haynes, excuse

me, had aonther version. And they seemed to have got

a—the conferees became locked on this issue. And it

was merely a moving of a county of twenty thousand

in one area into it and taking them out in another

area.

Q What was the importance of that that it ground

this whole thing to a halt, as it were?

A I would only term it as some of the practical

aspects you face in redistricting.

Q What would that be, Sir?

A Elected representatives from the same area

— 86 —

having a practical different view on how the line

should be drawn.

Q Well, do you recail what the competing—

A Well, the publicized incident was that you had

some three or four members who was interested in

possibly running for Congress.

(P. 47)

Q Would you tie that down specifically, Sir, if

you recall?

A Well, I don’t ever like to announce for any other

candidate and I don’t know if it was right to even

publicize then that they were planning on being candi-

dates. It did cause a little legislative hassle at the time.

I think since then, Senator Jordan has announced. I

think Senator Wilson has announced. Representative

Clyde Haynes has not. And so this was some of the

practical aspects of it.

* * *

(P. 50)

Q And is it your testimony here today, Sir, that

those deviations could not possibly have been avoided?

A The—the—the approach to redistricting deter-

mines as to what can be avoided.

(P. 51)

I would say that it is my feeling that the conferees

sigred a bill where the tolerances were supported by

good reasons or they had reasons for their deviations

* * *

(P. 53)

Q If I understand you correctly, Mr\ Speaker,

while you concede that it would have been theoretically

possible to draw the congressional districts to be more

mathematically equal than the

(P. 54)

bill that actually came out, you feel that the bill that

was passed was the closest that could possibly be done

— 87 —

Pas ARS re wi die

pani atc ciceaiceeunannanes Be re bc iste Rt SBIR ie is Mes REN tin SAN AEN aah Bie sis

,‘

considering its various other factors?

A I think—yes, sir. And I think the House bill was

tighter in tolerance in the final draft than it was re.

ported out of the conference committee.

Q What, how come the House, then, I don’t know,

it’s kind of a hard question, but then the House sub

sequently adopted the bill that came out of the con-

ference commitee, did they not?

A Yes, sir.

Q Why, why did they go with this bill with looser |

tolerance?

| A’ Well, it’s—it’s—it’s difficult to say in words,

But from a practical point of view, it’s having to deal

with additional people and the satisfying of more peo-

ple. It—it does seem to have some more loosening of

the tg@lerance effect than the tightening aspect of it.

** ¢&

(P. 57)

Q Did anybody examine these bills before they

were, you know, check them for typographical errors?

A Yes, sir. We have several staffs that do work on

them, but you pretty well have to experience the work-

ing conditions to want to defend and appreciate the

work that is done that—

(P. 58)

that comes out on these projects. :

Q Well, what, would you elaborate on that answer?

A - Well, I do to this extent, I—I think it’s—it’s

easy to make an issue out of an error and rightly so,

sometime, because of its magnitude and its effect on.

the final version of the bill. But then at the same time,

well, you may be fighting the fact that the author has

to get his bill up on a certain calendar day of the week

or else it will carry over into the next week. When you

stop and think that the staff is—the final draft is get-

ting down to a point where they have to work and kind

— 883 —

of eliminate some of the conversations and the argu-

ments that go on around a conference table. And some-

times, there are—there’s a last minute compromise

change and this has to be implemented and one of the

staff people might overlook it or something. I think

there’s—there’s some real administrative assignments

that must be carried out. And as presiding officer, I’m

always of the type that before I criticize one of my

'— staff members I would share the responsibility myself.

And there’s lots of room and desire to be improved in

the legislative process, but it’s the

(P. 59)

staff members that. we have and still do a wonderful

job in my mind.

*# ¢€

Q In other words, if I understand you correctly,

Mr. Speaker, and far be it from me to put words in

your mouth, what you’re saying is that mistakes can

happen when you’re operating under the pressure such

as the Legislature operates under?

A That’s right.

Q There are deadlines and crowded calendars and

what-have-you?

A That’s right.

es * ¢€

Q Was there ever an effort made to your knowl-

edge to achieve absolute mathematical equality?

A I think, here again, that the conferees tried to

draw the bill as tight as they possibly could to the

average of four hundre dand sixty-six thousand or

what the average number might be, but we have to

acknowledge that there would be tolerances and that

the tolerances could be justified.

-Q To your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, was there any

factor in this tolerance equation based on projected

population changes?

— |

rereassemeeanery ———

% Ee a

_ that the, say, the trend in Harris County looked like

A Not to my knowledge. I—I—I take it—I’ll qual.

ify it to this extent. I did hear conferees in one areg

say, “Well, from

(P. 67)

statistics, this appéars to be a growing part of Texas—

Q What is this that you’re referring to?

. A —where this other one appears to be a declining

area.” I think this was probably made to justify some

of the wider-spread tolerances that may have existed

in the so-called non-metropolitan congressional dis.

tricts.

Q Can you refer to any specific district or—

A I would have to have—

Q —geographic area? Would it help you to refer

to a map, Mr. Speaker?

A Well, I—I think you pretty well have to take

the counties. I think it was—it might be mentioned

they were growing much faster than they may be in

San Angelo or Abilene, for example.

Q Well, how was this—

A But our population—

Q Well, let me ask this question: How did the pop-

ulation projections figure into the equation; was a

district intentionally underpopulated in order to allow

for growth in the future#er

(P. 68)

exactly what was done, if you know?

A. To the best of my knowledge, I think that they,

in—in attempting to draw the bill with one man, one

vote and come as close to it as they possibly could, and

then when there was some deviation or some need for

having a wider spread, they would look at this pro-

jected population pattern. But as to the exact districts,

I’m not—I’m not aware and I—

Q Art you saying, Mr. Speaker, that these justifi-

— 90 —

cations came ex post facto?

A I—I think it came as a—I don’t think the bill

was drawn definitely with that as a—as a—as a main

element. I think when you—when the lawmakers

found that they had reached a blockage area, so to

speak, in drafting redistricting, that they had to take

into consideration all factors. And then of course, they

took the population growth factor into consideration.

The members of my committee would be more artic-

ulate on that element than I would be. And I—I don’t

want to be speaking for someone else.

** *

(P. 69)

~ Q > (continuing by Mr. Fischman) What population

figures were utilized in the drafting of the House bills,

to your knowledge?

A The House congressional redistricting bill?

Q Yes, sir.

A To the best of my knowledge they were using

the—the latest figures put out by the federal census

bureau.

Q Were there any figures on voter registration or

anything else other than raw population used?

A I’m sorry. I couldn’t—I don’t know.

Q Would the same be true to your knowledge of

the conference committee bill?

A To my knowledge, yes.

Q In the press release, Mr. Speaker, that was in-

troduced as Plaintiff’s Exhibit—offered. as Plaintiff’s

Exhibit Number One, you use the word “geographic

needs”; by that, you

(P. 70)

meant preservation of county lines as much as pos-

sible? ,

** ¢

(P. 72)

—91—

ee ae ee

Seecetutien eet eT

bidders pce Ns Sa ad

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q Mr. Speaker, would it be a correct summation

or not of what you have said that what you hoped and

charged the members of the Legislature with was to

come up with a bill that, first, came as near to being

mathematically equal for one man, one vote as they

could get and to also take into consideration, I believe,

the other factors that you have enumerated, such as

compactness, community

(P. 73)

of interests and cutting as few county lines as pos.

sible, that this is what you charged your committee

and hoped the Legislature would come up with in the

way of a congressional redistricting bill?

A That is correct. The only other element that

would be—right after one man, one vote, the federal

case law—would be awareness of our own state consti-

tution and then the elements that you have mentioned.

** ¢

(P. 74)

MR. FISCHMAN:

Q In response to Counsel’s question that the com-

mittee tried to draw—I’m paraphrasing now—the

committee tried to or the Legislature tried to draw

the bill as mathematically equal as possible. And then

except for certain factors, he enumerated several fac-

tors, but he did leave out the factor of preserving the

integrity of existing districts, which, I believe, you

testified was one of the considerations, is that

(P. 75)

right?

A_ I didn’t—I didn’t mean to change my position

from what I previously stated on that. I did state it as

a factor.

*¢ ¢

Q And it’s, I believe, your testimony and I think

i 08 es

pADPR AL LA POLPASPE ARE AIRE awe

the record will show that the bill that was enrolled by

the House could not get through the Senate or did not

get through the Senate?

A Did not get through the Senate.

Q Was there any substantial effort made to get it

through?

A No, there was—there wasn’t any lobbying on

my part with the Senate as in respect to the House bill

and I don’t think it would have been expected or right

for us to do so.

Q Well, did you ever confer with the Lieutenant

Governor in regard to congressional

a O8 ax

eh eet eee Nr rea OL

tian kesh tal SSI

Oral Deposition of

Ben Barnes

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION of BEN BARNES,

a witness produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs, taken

in the above styled and numbered cause on the 3rd

day of December, A.D., 1971, before JAN STROUD,

a Notary Public in and for Dallas County, Texas, in

the offices of CLAYTON, FRIDAY, FRIEDMAN

AND BURROUGHS located at 900 West Avenue, in

the City of Austin, County of Travis and State of

Texas, in accordance with the agreement hereinafter

set forth.

** *£

(P. 5)

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FISCHMAN:

** *

(P. 7)

Q We'll get it there. That’s all right. Did you give

any instructions or charge, as it were, to Senator

Word or the entire committee at the regular session?

A No. I—I—I gave no charge to them. Informal

discussion with my—my committee chairman, Senator

Word, I had great confidence in him and the other

members I appointed, Senator~Word being a lawyer

and having had experience with redistricting bills in

the past, I said, “We want to get as good a bill, con-

stitutional bill, as we possibly can.”

Q You were aware, then, of a certain amount of

difficulty in arriving at that because of the various

federal court cases involving redistricting, were you

not? .

(P. 8)

A Yes. But I had—I had faith that we could draw

— 94 —

a constitutional bill. It’s—it’s difficult to get any bill

passed through the legislature on re—any redistrict-

ing.

0 Why is that, Governor, based on your experi-

ence in the Legislature?

A Oh, I think that members of the—members of

the Legislature have an unfortunate situation in Texas

that they don’t have annual sessions of the Legisla-

ture. They need more—they—they need more time to

spend on their legislative duties. Three thousand bills

in one session is too many bills to consider.

Q Well, there are other factors than that and we’re

discussing, particularly, the matter of redistricting,

are we not? . |

A Well, I think redistricting in Texas, as in other

states, has become more difficult because of the shift

from rural to urban and the fast-growing areas makes

it more difficult, yes.

Q Governor, in all candor, it’s a matter of politics,

isn’t it?

A No, I don’t think that—that redistricting is any

more a matter of politics than a lot of other issues that

are settled in

(P. 9)

legislative bodies. I think it’s—I think it’s—it’s very

easy to call any—anything before the Legislature, any

decision they make is political, but I think it might—

the men I appointed, the men and women I appointed

did—did the best job that—that they—that they could.

And I—I—I think Senator Word is probably the least

or the most non-political man in the Senate, as far as

the chairman.

Q I want to get into that a little bit later, but I

would like for you to tell me, first, are you aware, as

I understand, Senator Word introduced a bill within

the first sixty calendar days of the session just as a

— 95 —

Dn Die cleat Dini ee

RA Ruste NES SRA Wk Ee

basic working bill that they could progress from, f

were you aware of what criteria the committee consid.

ered in drafting that bill or in drafting any of the

subsequent proposals or the bill that was finally passed

by the Senate in its regular session?

A Well, in all candor, I’m probably—I’m probably

not familiar with the criteria. I never discussed with

Senator Word exact what criteria. I read in the news.

papers what people always say about compactness of

districts and—and community of interests and other

phrases that

(P. 10)

the courts have—have written in various and sundry

decisions, but I had faith and confidence in—in the

job that he was doing, but that—there were no guide-

lines I laid down nor—nor did I discuss with them

what—what—exact what criteria they should follow.

Q Governor, as I read the newspapers, the news-

papers report that on more than one occasion you ex-

pressed—I’m trying to choose my words carefully and

if I don’t, why, you use yours—

A Okay.

Q —expressed some concern about trying to mini-

mize the possibility of one incumbent congressman

having to run against another; do you recall ever mak-

ing such an expression?

A Well, I think on—I think, certainly, that I made

statements that we hoped that—that we could or that

I felt like the seniority in Congress, both Democrat

and Republican, were assets of our—of our state. I

think that’s what you’re referring to and that would

fit in with what you just asked.

Q Well, it’s true, is it ngt, that this was one of the

criteria that was considered by Senator Word and by

the rest of the committee?

A I think every member of the Legislature

— 96 —

(P. 11)

is under a great deal of pressure from his constituents

to—to keep their county in—in a congressional district

that’s community of interests or keep their county in

—in with the. surrounding counties. And certainly,

that there was a great deal of political pressure from

the people of Texas from various and sundry inter-

ested groups about what congressional district that

particular section of the country was going to be in or

whose congressional district that particular section of

the state was going to be in.

Q Well, one of the groups to which you allude in

your answer to my last question, would that have been

the incumbent congressmen, themselves?

A Well, I’m sure that the incumbent congressmen

were very interested in their individual districts. In-

cumbent congressmen were—would be very hesitant

to talk to me specifically about, “Well, look, this is—I

want my district like this.” Maybe—maybe in talking

to their own individual House member or senator they

would, but—

Q Well, did any of them actually

(P. 12)

overcome their reticence and discuss it with you?

A Well, other than every time I would see them,

“Well, how are you all coming on congressional redis-

tricting? When are we going to get a bill?” I mean,

this type of thing. Or, “I know you—you know I’m

your friend.” The—the normal statements that you

would hear and would—and would expect to hear.

Q You used the word “pressure” a moment ago.

While this might not have been pressure on you, per

se, Since you are elected by the state, by the people of

the state at large, would this, to your thinking, con-

stitute a pressure on particular representatives from

a given congressional district?

—

ees |

A Well, I’m sure the people in—in Comanche and

Brown County, my two home counties, wrote, con-

tacted their House member and their senator and—

and told them that they wanted to remain in—in the

Seventeenth Congressional District, those that con-

tacted them on congressional redistricting. Maybe

some contacted them and said we didn’t want to, but

I would be surprised. I’m—I’m sure that ninety per

cent of the contacts they had were from their con-

stituents in their district

(P13)

wanting to stay in that particular congressional dis-

trict. And I’m sure every other House member and

Senator falls into that exact category. I mean, prob-

ably three hundred Chamber of Commerces passed

resolutions and sent to the Legislature wanting their

particular city in some particular district.

Q To your knowledge, Governor, did any incum-

bent corigressman, either in person or through a mem-

ber of his staff or an interested intermediary, ever

submit a proposed district for himself?

A_ I really don’t know. I—the members of the

committee would know that, but—but I really don’t

know.

Q Were you aware, Governor, of the fact that a

number of senators and members of the House that

were concerned with congressional redistricting made

a trip to Washington to discuss the matter with the

congressional delegation? ;

A Yes, I was aware that the House committee. I

think that Governor Smith’s plane carried the House

committee and the House committee invited some of

the members of the Senate committee to go to Wash-

ington and they did. I remember that

(P. 14)

Senator Word did go, but I—I don’t remember—I can

— 98 —

Nee eee

find out—

Q Senator Mauzy, too, I believe?

A Senator—Senator Mauzy was not a member of

that committee, but if—if—he was a member of the

big committee. He was not a member of the congress

committee. Did—did he go on the plane? I didn’t know.

But—but several members of the Senate did go. I do

remember Senator Word went.

Q And did anyone have occasion to discuss with

you what transpired at that meeting in Washington?

A Oh, not to my memory, other than—than talk-

ing to Senator Word that they went and—and he said

they had a good visit with the congressional delegation.

We didn’t talk any specifics about—about the trip as

far as what any individual congressman may or may

not have said. As presiding officer of the Senate, I try

to stay uninvolved in—in—in the particulars with—

well, first of all, time prevented me from doing it even

if I had wanted to, but I—I try to stay as uninvolved

as best as I could in what—in what the committee

was doing.

(P. 15)

Q May I take it, then, by your answer, Governor,

that neither you nor your staff made any specific sug-

gestions to the committee?

A Well, I made some suggestions, in that when we

got into the special session and they hadn’t gotten a

bill, on one or two occasions, I remember one time late

at night, perhaps with a little too much emotion, I—

because I was—I was a little angry at that time, be-

cause the committee—I’ve forgotten now. We had

been in session three or four days and they had been

meeting and—and were at an impasse on—on getting

a bill. And I remember one time, specifically, I went

to the committee and suggested that they get a bill—

they—that the Senate and the House to get back to

— 99 —

me, as president of the Senate, a bill as quick as they

possibly could. I even think I went probably as far as

to say I might even discharge some of the members of

the conference committee and appoint a new one if

they didn’t—

Q But you made no specific—

A I—TI didn’t—

Q —recommendation as to the substance?

A No, I didn’t, no. No, I didn’t—

(P. 16)

I—I wasn’t talking about substance.

Q Did you make any such recommendations at the

regular session of the Legislature?

A Not to my knowledge, as—as far as the commit-

tee. I’m sure that I—that I inquired several times of

Senator Word to get a—to—to be working on a bill.

They were working on a senatorial bill, also, and I was

trying to get a senatorial redistricting bill out. And

I’m sure—I may have in a speech to the Senate urged

them to work on—to work on—on congressional and

senatorial redistricting. I might—I might have said

this in the press several times, urging them to get a

bill, but as far as specific recommendations, I never

made any.

Q Well, Governor, I have reference to an article

in the San Antonio Express on May 29th, 1971, the

pertinent part, which I’ll read to you and ask you if

that’s accurate. According to the article, it says that,

“The Senators took only twenty minutes to pass the

bill,” referring to the congressional redistricting bill,

“once they received the revised committee version in

printed form. Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes dis-

approved the original committee-approved draft

(P. 17)

and ordered it redrawn before permitting it to be

brought to the floor about 9:50 P.M. The portion of

— 100 —

the committee bill disapproved by Barnes was the

Dallas-Fort Worth area”; do you have any recollection

of that, Governor?

A This was during the special—this was during

the regular session?

Q May 29th.

A Yeah, I guess—I guess it was the last day of

the—

Q Of the regular session?

A No, I don’t have any recollection, but I can—I

may can talk to Senator Word or we can—or the com-

mittee staff and come back—can find out exactly what

—what the problem was. But if they only withdrew—

they only redrew the Dallas-Fort Worth lines, is that

—is that what it says?

Q Well, let me show you what I’m talking about,

Governor. That might help you. This paragraph right

here (indicating).

A No, I don’t remember that. I really don’t know.

But I would—I would think that—that probably in—

in looking at the map, I—I—I could say if I objected

to it. I’m—

(P. 18)

I'm not a student of redistricting as far as what that

first bill did to Dallas-Fort Worth. I’m sure that the—

that the lines may have looked gerrymander to me and

I—and I may have raised that question. And I use

gerrymander very loosely from the standpoint of how

it looked. I—I shouldn’t get this into the deposition.

When I think of gerrymander, I think of Senator Mc-

Kool’s district that he—that he presented to the Sen-

ate for the—for the Senate redistricting bill where—

where there was an umbrella shape that went up and

got his house in Dallas County and then came down

one precinct long down and then—and got the bulk of

his district. I’m sure that there was something peculiar

— 101 —

;

about it that I would raise objections to it along those

lines, but I—I—I really don’t remember specifically,

And I’m sometimes given credit for in newspapers

what I do not do, but—but if that’s—I’m—I’m not

arguing with the press there.

Q I understand that, Governor. I just suggested it

to you in hopes that you might have some recollection

of what this referred to.

(P. 19)

A No, I—I really—I really don’t have any recol-

lection.

Q Do you have any recollection of expressing your

thoughts on the shape or existence of the new Twenty-

fourth District, that is what we refer to, Mid-Cities

District?

A No, I really don’t. As a matter of fact, it’s only

until recently that I have been able to even determine

exactly where those lines were myself—and who’s in

which district in*the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Q You didn’t particularly take note of its shape

and feel that it was—

A Well, I—I didn’t—I’m sure that if I had thought

that it had not met what—what I considered to—to he

a reasonable district that—that I would have raised

some objections at that time when the committee went

over it with me and when I saw the final printed ver-

sion, but I don’t—I don’t remember raising any objec-

tions at that time.

Q To direct your attention, Governor, to the Har-

ris County Gulf Coast area, are you roughly aware of

the districts as they stand now? I don’t mean do you

know precisely where—

(P. 20)

A I don’t know precisely. Yes, I’m—I’m aware of

basically—

Q I understand that the Eighteenth District that

— 102 —

was created under SB 1 is in the central core of the

city of Houston; is that your recollection of it?

A Yes, it is. I don’t—I’m not familiar if that is

the number, but there is a district that is—

Q And I believe that’s the one that Senator Jordan

has announced as a candidate in the Democratic pri-

mary for; do you have any knowledge of that?

A Well, I—I know that she’s going to be a candi-

date. Has she announced yet? She may have already

announced, but I don’t think she has formally an-

nounced.

Q But you read the papers and you know that

that’s supposed to be Barbara Jordan’s district, is that

correct?

A No, I don’t—I don’t know that it’s supposed to

be Barbara Jordan’s district. I—I do know that she’s

made her intentions known to run for Congress.

Q And were you aware, Governor, of the

(P..21)

effect of the creation of that district on the other dis-

tricts lying wholly or partially in Harris County?

A I’m not too sure I understand what you mean.

Q Well, what I’m getting at, Governor, is this:

that Eighteenth District is plopped down more or less

right in the middle of Houston. It’s a little bit to the

north side, northeast side, but basically, it’s right in

the middle of Houston. And then the other districts

seem to be peripherating around it; do you have any

knowledge of why that particular group of contiguous

districts was drawn in that manner?

A Well, I would say that—that those districts, as

do the senatorial districts in Harris County, try to—

try to recognize community of interests. You—you can

go several different ways about dividing an urban

county. I—I—I remember the court has—has criti-

cized some pie-shaped districts coming in and—and

— 103 —

eRe bens wee |

everyone represents a little bit of the center and com.

ing out. It—it’s very hard for people living in those

urban counties to distinguish the district lines. I guess

there are twenty to thirty

(P. 22)

different thoughts on how to divide—divide urban

districts, but—but I think that the Senate Bill 1 ver.

sion is—is a fair and equitable way to divide Harris

County.

Q You were aware, were you not, that this central

core district of Harris County has extremely heavy

ethnic minority population, that would be black and

brown population, are you not?

A I’m aware now that—that—of the percentages.

I was not aware of the percentages of black-brown

versus white at the time the bill was passed. Obviously,

I knew a lot of people, a—a lot of the—of black Texans

lived in that district.

Q And you would agree, would you not, that the

effect of creating that district would have been to re-

move a number of predominantly black and brown

census tracts from the other congressional districts

peripherating around that Eighteenth District, will

you not?

A Well, I’m not sure that I was aware at the time —

of the bill. As a matter of fact, I’m not aware now of

—of what percentage black are in the other congres-

sional districts. I know that there—there are some—

there are some—

(P. 23)

there are black voters in—in some other of the con-

gressional districts, but—but at the time the bill was

passed, I—I wasn't aware of the percentages of whites

versus black in that district or any other district.

You’re saying that—that if—if that district had a

high percentage of black, then there wasn’t—the other

104 —

districts had to lose some of their black population?

Q Governor, I’m not supposed to testify, but I

think you have gotten the inference of my question

quite well. Let me move on, then, and ask you this:

were you aware, Governor, of a shift of several pre-

dominately black census tracts in Dallas County from

the district of which Congressman Cabell is the incum-

bent into this new Twenty-fourth District?

A No, I was not aware of that. I was not at all.

Q Governor, to your knowledge based on your leg-

islative experience, and the fact that you are trained

in the law, what criteria may be considered in drafting

a congressional redistricting bill?

MR. McDANIEL: I think that calls for an

opinion, which he

(P. 24)

can express if he wants to, but it’s certainly not

factual testimony.

MR. FISCHMAN: I understand that, Counsel.

And I would appreciate the Governor’s thoughts

on it.

A Well, Larry, I really—I mean, I can—I can

quote back to you all—all the terminology that every-

one that talks about redistricting speaks of, but I don’t

have any new criteria. We can talk about community

of interests and, certainly, we cay talk about areas

contiguous to one another. And I—I—I can go on and

do this, but I—I don’t know that I can add anything

new to—to a definition of—of what the ingredients

are for—for a constitutional redistricting bill.

Q Allright. Governor, it’s, as Counsel has pointed

out, it would just call. for an opinion and probably

wouldn’t carry much strength as admissible evidence

in a legal proceeding. Let me ask you this: I get the

impression from your testimony here this morning

that certainly the committee chaired by Senator Word

— 105 —

considered

(PP. 25)

population as a factor in drawing the congressional]

districts?

A Yes.

Q And I think it’s fair to say, Governor, that the

committee also considered preserving as far as possible

the integrity of existing districts so as to preclude as

~much as possible one congressman having to run

against another one?

A Well, I would think that that was part of the

criteria, but, of course, when you’re—when you're

moving districts to urban areas, that’s—that’s impos-

sible, as—as it was in this last congressional redis-

tricting bill.

* * *

(P. 32)

Q Governor, were you aware of the numbers in

the, that is, the mathematical population of each dis-

trict under the three bills that were eventually passed,

that is, the House bill that was sent over and then the

Senate bill,

(P. 33)

which was a substitute, and then finally the bill that

was passed in the special session, were you aware of

the numbers involved in each district?

A Are you talking about the percentage of devia-

tion?

Q Well, not necessarily expressed in percentages.

But were you aware that some districts were under

and some districts were over? |

A Oh, yes. I’m—I’m sure at the time that—that I

was inuch more aware than I am now. I can’t tell you

now which districts were under and which districts

were over, but I’m sure at the time that—that I—well,

I had in front of me the population of each district. It

— 106 —

was printed on the—it was printed on the—on the

map that was passed.

Q Was a map actually enacted as part of the bill?

A Well, it wasn’t enacted as part of the bill, but

Senator Word had a map with the congressional lines

drawn on it, I think, at his desk at the time that the—

at the time the bill was being passed. But that doesn’t

help any in the urban areas, because the map’s about

—was—the maps were about the size of your—

(P. 34)

Q Right.

A —newspaper maps, so it doesn’t show the—the

division of districts in urban areas. It just shows

Dallas and Harris County and Tarrant and Bexar

divided into—into districts.

Q Then were you aware, Governor, that the bill

enacted by the House deviated less on the averages

than the bill that was enacted by the Senate or the bill

that finally passed as SB 1 in the special session?

A No, I—I—I cannot say that I was aware at that

time.

Q Can you tell us what was wrong, to use a word

loosely, with the House bill that was sent over and was

rejected by the Senate?

A No, I really can’t tell you what was wrong with

it, because I—I really don’t remember exactly how the

House bill differed from the Senate. I think from a—

I—I think from a practical standpoint that—that

there were not—that there were not sixteen votes in

the Senate for it. I think that was the first thing that

was wrong for it. The Senate wanted to—to write

their own bill and I think there’s a great deal of, per-

haps, of pride of authorship, so to speak. I have

(P. 35)

been a long proponent of—of—of changing our con-

ference committee system in Texas. But as you know,

— 107 —

oy |

Fait ina See

most important legislation under—under Texas legis.

lative rules is written in conference committees. |

would like to change this. And I’m editorializing your

deposition. I apologize.

Q Go right ahead, Governor. Governor, you're

quoted in the Corpus Christi Caller on February 28th,

1971, as being in agreement with Representative Del.

win Jones of Lubbock, who was the chairman of the

House redistricting committee, that the Texas senior

congressmen should be preserved; do you recall ever

making such a statement?

A Ihave said—I have said in several speeches that

—that our congressional seniority is a—is a good asset

or a great asset for Texas in Washington and that |

hope that—this was back during the time of the ses-

sion—that I hope that our seniority could be preserved

to the best of the Legislature’s ability.

Q And that they should consider this as a factor,

Governor?

A Well, certainly, it—it was—it was on my mind

as a factor and I’m sure it was, to

(P. 36)

some extent, it was on their mind.

** *€

(P. 41)

Q I’mnot sure, Governor, that it’s clear to me why

the House bill didn’t get through the Senate. Could

you try and run that by again?

A Well, not having the two bills here in front of

me, I cannot discuss the particulars. But I think on

congressional redistricting and like all other matters,

that there’s a great deal of Senate and House pride.

Very few bills of real importance pass both the House

andthe Senate. The Senate passes a version and the

House passes a version and the differences are arbi-

trated in the

— 108 —

(P. 42)

— conference committee.

Q And you don’t recall without having the ills in

front of you what the substantial differences were?

A No, I—I really don’t.

Q And you don’t recall being aware of the fact that

the average deviation in the House bill was much less

than either the Senate substitute bill or—

A Or the conference committee report? No, I real-

ly don’t know.

Q Is it your considered judgment as presiding of-

ficer of the Senate that this was the best bill that they

could have passed?

A Yes. I—I’m—I have got enough faith in the

people that I appointed to the committee that they

came up with the best possible plan that could pass.

I read stories about—about junior high students sit-

ing down and drawing redistricting maps in an hour’s

time and their being better than the bills the Legisla-

ture passed, but I think when you realize how thedem-

ocratic process works, it’s—it’s slightly more different

—difficult than it would assume to a layman.

Q I take it that’s because that the

(P. 43)

legislature, as the elected representative of the peo-

ple, has to consider factors other than just pure math-

ematical drawing of lines?

A A man has to to the best of his conscience rep-

resent the constituents that elected him.

Q And they have to consider other factors in draw-

ing these bills other than just population equality?

A Well, I think it would be less than candid on

my part if I said that the—that the population was

the only factor, but I—I think that they did to the

best of their ability draw a constitutional congression-

al redistricting bill.

— 109 —

;

—

Oral Deposition of

| Gregory Drew Hooser

** #

(P. 6)

Q She’s concentrating on her pad. Were you en-

ployed, Mr. Hooser, by any agency or department of

the state of Texas or the Legislature during this last

session of the Legislature?

Yes, I was.

What agency was it?

By the Senate of Texas.

Is Austin your home town, incidentally?

For the last thirteen years.

How do those, I remember from my own

(fF. 7)

law student days, those positions are, shall we say,

coveted, how did you happen to come by yours?

A That’s a difficult question to answer. I initially

began working for the secretary of the Senate as a

Xerox machine operator my sophomore year in college.

Q And you have just kind of—

A_ I suppose. |

Q —stuck with it ever since?

A_ I worked my way all the way through school.

Q What were your duties as an employee of the

Senate during this last session of the Legislature?

A I was a clerk to the Senate committee, Senate

redistricting committee. I think the official title is

legislative judicial districts. 1 was employed as a clerk

—clerk under the chairman of the committee, Senator

J. P. Word.

Q What were your duties in that capacity, Mr. —

Hooser?

A_ I was generally directed to provide the commit-

— 110—

OPoOroy

tee with information, try to gather it, make it avail-

able to the Senate redistricting committee for the

purpose of redistricting the

(P38)

legislative senatorial and congressional districts. Gen-

erally, I was an errand-boy when it really comes down

to it.

Q Did you attend committee meetings?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did you do legal research?

A I suppose you would have to call it research, yes.

| looked through a number of cases, tried to—mostly,

my—my job was gathering material, like trying to get

information regarding census data, trying to get maps

prepared and make them available for the members

of the Senate whenever they wanted to work on any-

thing, answer calls, set up the committee meetings,

general clerk work that was done in the Senate.

Q Did you also perform these same functions dur-

ing the special session?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you serve the members of the Senate and

House conference committee on redistricting?

A Yes, I did, as a clerk to the Senate conferees.

* * *

(P. 11)

Q Well, what were you doing all these maps for?

A Well, we were trying to simply take a look,

mainly, at our problem, at—at what would be—what

were the possibilities, what were the requirements.

First of all, when you draw a map, if you try to set

down, and you end up with locating

(P. 12)

your problem areas.

Q What do you mean by “problem areas,” Mr.

Hooser?

—111—

ab cstbots

A Well, when you draw a map you merely discover

that in certain areas—

Q I wish, Mr. Hooser, that you would, insofar as

you’re able to recall, be specific about what areas

you’re talking about.

A Oh, that is going to be difficult.

Q Generalities, while they are helpful to me, won't

be near as helpful as if you can recall the specific

things that you’re talking about.

A Well, you—you have to sit down and draw a

map; for example, that specifies, that will give you an

idea of how many districts you can draw in a—in a

metropolitan county and what your surplus will be

and what counties are contiguous thereto and that

sort of problem.

Q Any other problem areas that you can recall?

A No.

*x* * &€

(P. 18)

Q Did you ever have occasion to compare the cen-

sus data to any proposed bill to determine

(P. 14)

whether the districts that were contained in the bill

were either abo below the mathematical ideal,

four hundred and sixty-six thousand five something?

A I’m sure I did, but I cannot recall. We—we

always attempted to check percentage deviations, but

I don’t remember any specific.

Q_ I’m not asking if you can remember any specific

figures. But what was your purpose in doing that?

A We wanted to know what our—what our popv-

lation was and what our distribution was in a given

district.

Q Were adjustments made—well, let me back up

just a minute. You haven't told me how many bills

were submitted; was there a number of bills or how

— 112 —

did it go about, from the original bill submitted by

Senator Word, I want you to trace for me the steps,

the process, of the bill that finally ended up as a sub-

stitute to the House bill?

A We simply took the base bill that Senator Word

had introduced, then adopted a substitute that was

worked out by the members of the redistricting com-

mittee.

Q How was it worked out is what I’m

(P. 15)

trying to get at?

A In consultation with each other, with members

of the Senate.

Q Were you privy to these consultations to any

extent?

A No, not to any extent, no.

Q I’m trying to get at what they actually did. How

did they go about doing it; did they sit down with a

map around a table or on the floor and draw lines or

what did they do?

A Any particular message would be simply as-

sumption since I was not privy to—to their considera-

tions. It would be an assumption that they discussed

how to tie up the program, how—I feel confident that

the committee members drew their maps, that they

compared maps with each other. And that’s—that’s all

I can guess at.

* *¢ &

(P. 17)

Q Now, I want to clear up in my mind. The map

that you’re referring to and any map that you pre-

pared was prepared as a result of compiling data. In

other words, you would sit down and say, “Well, the

First District needs to have so many people in it and

we can go at it by putting in these counties and these

census tracts,” and then you would, when you figured

—113—

out what went in there, then, you drew a line on the

map, is that correct?

A That’s—that’s roughly correct, yes.

Q Well, how, you know, if your

(P. 18)

recollection of it differs, please tell me how it was dif.

ferent?

A I suppose that’s a fairly good description of

how it was done.

Q_ In other words, somebody would say, ‘Well, we

ought to have such-and-such county in somebody’s dis.

trict,” and then he would see what the population was

and if it could be fitted in, then, he would draw the

4 line so as to encompass that county in the district, is

4 that right?

; A Partly. Partly. The—the problem was attacked

from every angle that it could be attacked from. Some

districts, for example, there was no difficulty in E]

Paso County, because E] Paso was—was quite near to

the—I’m sorry. I’m—I’m jumping to—to another bill,

jumping to another bill, to the Senate bill. There are

some counties which—which—which were so close to

ideal that there were no significant difficulties.

Q What about some of the urban areas such as

Houston; how was that done?

A Approximately the same way, speaking in gen-

eralities. We just decided how many districts were—

should be put into a—into a given county and the lines

were drawn accordingly.

(P. 19)

Q Well, now, when you’re dealing with an urban —

county like Harris County, for example, you would

consider it by census tract, would you not?

A Yes. The bill reflects that census tracts were the

basis for the inside metropolitan areas. That’s the

lowest available population figure we could get during

—114—

: ‘ ‘

Ne rtrte es ett eres rere pene ee ee ae - ee

Deo &

;

the session, because our figures, census figures that

were available at that time were—went no further

than census tracts in enumeration districts.

Q Where did you get your figures, i

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

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