# Appendix — White v. Weiser > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0172%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 412 U.S. 783 ## 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 i 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 1-14-72 1-14-72 1-14-72 1-14-72 1-19-72 1-19-72 1-20-72 1-21-72 1-21-72 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 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: L 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 © ™. Wichita Falls, Texas 13th “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. a _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. 4 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. ie 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 V. 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 ~~ & BS i 8 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 5. 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, a) 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 — al 3S & i 3 So 5 RB 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, er zeR ; E P a3 .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 eR 8 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: I, 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: L 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: oo 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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. V. 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. pe oe 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- oe 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, ae 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 ES g F 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- oe 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 By 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: 1. 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 a 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. V. 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 en 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- e. (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? (c) In drawing a plan of congressional redis- 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. ae (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 i [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0172%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.