~l
~ ~ baaalal~ll
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND ONE (1) COPY OF THIS REQUEST
AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT
MADE BY: David Mendez
MEETING DATE: February 22, 2010
OFFICE: Bickerstaff, Heath,
Delgado, Acosta LLP
TIME PREFERRED: 11:00 AM
SUBJECT: Presentation by David Mendez with Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
regarding the 2011 Redistricting.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: David Mendez
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in
accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS RQUEST RECEIVED ON:
@ .M.
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court
Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being
addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners'
Court.
5:00 PM previous Tuesday
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLp
Austin El Paso Dallas Houston
David Mendez
Attorney at Law
Board Certified, Administrative Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization
3711 S. MoPac Expressway
Building One, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746
p:512-472-8021 f:512-320-5638
dm endez@bickerstaff. com
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLB
3"rll S. ~41nPac Expressway Building One, Suite 3011 Austin, Texas 7Si4(i (512) 472-8021 Fax (612) 320-~ifi38 www.bickeistaff.com
February 19, 2010
Honorable Pat Tinley
Ken• County Judge
700 Main Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
Dear Judge Tinley:
Thank you for allowing us to make a presentation to the Kerr County Commissioners
Court regarding our redistricting service. As you know, we provided this service for the
County during the 2001 round of redistricting and we are ready to assist the
Commissioners Court with this project in the coming cycle. Because this Firm already
has Kerr County data and current maps in our GIS system, the County can realize
substantial savings by using the Firm during the next redistricting cycle. We will have a
head start in preparing plans and maps based upon the 2010 census data.
This letter provides some information for the Commissioners Court on our background
and also outlines the scope of services entailed. I will be at the Commissioners Court
Meeting on Monday, February 22, 2010 and will make a brief presentation an the Firm. I
know that a number of the commissioners may not have been through the redistricting
process before so I am including some information on the process and on our Firm which
maybe of assistance to you and the Court in dealing with this matter. I have enclosed:
• A proposed contract for services for your consideration
• An Order for the Court under Tex. Local Govt. Code Section 262.024
establishing a discretionary exemption for procurement of a professional
service
• A copy of an Article on Redistricting that I wrote which was recently
published by the Conference of Urban Counties
• A time line we have developed that describes critical elements in the
redistricting process
• A list of our clients from the 1991 and 2001 redistricting cycles
My partners, Bob Heath and Syd Falk, and I are heading up the Firm's redistricting
efforts for the 2010 redistricting cycle. In addition to these attorneys, several other
attorneys at the Firm have substantial elections, redistricting, and voting rights
experience. We also have experienced support staff including a full-time GIS
(geographic information system) technician that assists with technical aspects of the
l
Letter to Judge Tinley
February 19, 2010
Page 2
process, such as in-house production, o£ maps and demographic data. A brief
introduction to the credentials of our redistricting team is attached.
Our team guides the County through the legal decisions that are the core of the
redistricting process and then prepares submissions to the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") to obtain Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance for any changes adopted by
the County. As part of the service, we monitor the submission at DOJ and respond to any
inquiries or requests for additional information about the Cotuity's submission.. We work
with County officials, staff, and members of the public to ensure compliance with
redistricting obligations and meaningful public participation. In addition to redrawing the
county commissioner precincts, we also work with the County to redraw county election
precincts and, when necessary, to realign justice and constable precincts. The attached
Scope of Services describes these steps in more detail.
Our attorneys work closely with the Commissioners Court to set a schedule for the
project once the census data is published. Most of the redistricting work will be
undertaken during the County's 2010-2011 fiscal year. Our billing is done on an hourly
basis, and we will be pleased to jointly develop a budget with you. We will work with
you to limit costs by having work done where appropriate by lower-cost associates and
GIS specialists working under a lawyer's supervision. One potential cost-saving measure
is that we have the capability to work with you on plan design using technology that
permits you to tie into our computer to see maps as a plan is being altered in Austin and
to direct the attorney or GIS specialist while avoiding the very significant cost of travel.
Rather than being tied to aone-size-fits-all fixed fee with limitations on what services are
available, we will cooperate with you to develop the specific services that you want and
need and will work with you to provide acost-effective means of providing those
services.
We look forward to meeting with the Court and answering any questions you may have
about redistricting or about the firm. We are proud to have served Kerr County in the
2001 round of redistricting and we would be pleased to represent the County in the
present redistricting cycle.
Sincerely,

David Mendez
D M/da
Enclosures
f
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
Primary Redistricting Team
Our redistricting team consists of a number of Firm lawyers. The Firm's team is
headed by Bob Heath, Syd Falk and David Mendez. In addition, the Firm has six other
atton~eys and two technical staff that have substantial elections, redistricting and voting
rights experience.
C. Robert Heath
Mr. Heath has been lead counsel on many redistricting cases and is a frequent
speaker on redistricting at state and national conferences. He has supervised the
preparation of many complex submissions to the Department of Justice. Mr. Heath
represented governmental entities in several voting rights lawsuits. A notable suit is
Chen v. City of Hoatston, 206 F.3d 502 (5th. Cir. 2000) in which the City obtained a
summary judgment dismissing a Shaw v. Reno challenge to its council districts. He has
more than 28 years experience as a redistricting attorney. Mr. Heath graduated from The
University of Texas School of Law in 1972. He is licensed by the Supreme Court of the
State of Texas, and also to practice in the U.S. District Court for all Texas districts, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Heath has spoken and delivered papers on redistricting throughout the United
States and is recognized as an expert in this area of law. His article, Managing the
Political Thicket: Developing Objective Standards in voting Rights Litigation, 21 Stetson
L. Rev. 819 (1992), was quoted and cited by the United States Supreme Court in Holder
v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 889 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
David Mendez
Mr. Mendez has experience in voting rights and redistricting issues and regularly
advises counties, cities, colleges and school districts in these areas. He has also prepared
numerous Department of Justice submissions. He joined. the Firm in 1986 and during the
1991 and 2001 redistricting cycles, he represented some of the largest counties in Texas
in their redistricting and justice and constable precinct realignment projects. Mr. Mendez
graduated from The University of Texas School of Law in 1980. He is licensed to
practice law by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, and also to practice in the U.S.
District Court for all of the Districts in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
Mr. Mendez was lead attorney or had substantial authority for several redistricting
projects including for the following clients: Dallas County, Dallas County Community
College District, Dallas Independent School District, Hidalgo County, Midland County,
Brazos County and many others.
Mr. Mendez assisted extensively in the Firm's representation of the City of
Houston in the 1991 Campos litigation, and conducted substantial portions of the
discovery, defended council members' depositions and prepared expert witnesses, as well
as analysis and briefing of legal issues. He has helped numerous cities and other entities
implement single member districts. Mr. Mendez also works frequently on election
contests, recounts and other election law related matters before the courts and the Texas
Legislature. He has spoken. at seminars on election law sponsored by county associations
and the Secretary of State. Mr. Mendez has over seventeen years of redistricting and
Voting Rights Act experience.
Sydney W. Falk, Jr. ~~'
Mr. Falk has experience in voting rights litigation, both through his work on cases
handled by the Firm (including Chen v. City of Housto~~a), and as a former Fifth Circuit
briefing attorney. Prior to obtaining his law degree, Mr. Falk received a Ph.D. in
theoretical astrophysics and did post-doctoral work at Cal. Tech and the University of
Chicago. His background in mathematics and statistics is valuable in analyzing relevant
redistricting statistics and the expert testimony in voting rights cases. He has more than
17 years redistricting experience, including preparation of preclearance submissions. He
has successfully defended Dallas County and (with Bob Heath) Bexar County in lawsuits
challenging their redistricting plans, in particular, aspects of their plans that eliminated
justice precincts; the counties prevailed in these cases. He was co-counsel with Bob
Heath. in the Chen v. City of Houston case; and participated with other firm. attorneys in
the 1991 Campos v. City of Houston litigation. He recently defended Bexar County in a
case challenging the County's elimination of a justice of the peace position; the case
settled and the abolition of the position stood. Mr. Falk graduated from The University
of Texas School of Law in 1984. He is licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of
the State of Texas, and also to practice in the U.S. District Court for all Texas federal
districts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, and the Supreme
Court of the United States.
GIS/Redistricting Staff
Sherry McCall
Ms. McCall is the Firm's senior redistricting specialist. As the Firm's GIS
specialist, she will handle the technical drawing of the County's maps, and she works
closely with legal counsel and our Elections Specialist to compile the various technical
reports and maps required for the Department of Justice submission. In the County's
proposed scope of work, Ms. McCall will also work with federal Census Bureau staff in
Washington D.C. to coordinate the County's data that must be submitted to ensure
accurate census tabulation in 2010. Because of the Firm's depth and history with
redistricting clients and redistricting issues, Ms. McCall knows census bureau staff and
policies that are critical to the preparatory work prior to the 2010 census.
Prior to joining the Finn over 10 years ago, she was a GIS specialist at the Texas
Education Agency. During the period leading up to the 2010 census the Finn's team
along with Ms. McCall will coordinate the County's submissions under the Boundary and
Annexation Surveys (BAS) and review of submitted data under the LUCA (Local Update
of Census Addresses) program. We will coordinate submission of election precinct
boundary data to the Legislative Council. Once the Census data is released in 2010, Ms.
McCall and other GIS staff under her supervision will develop specific client districting
plans and she will also be responsible for the initial review of other specialists' plans.
She also assists attorneys in analyzing population data and relevant historical elections,
and develops exhibits needed for preclearance submissions and for litigation. Ms.
McCall graduated from the University of North Texas with a B.A. in Biology in 1991.
She is not an attorney and is not licensed to practice law.
Betty Brown
Ms. Brown serves as the Elections Specialist for the Firm. Ms. Brown is
responsible for compiling the data that supports a county's DOJ submission. She works
closely with the legal team and the GIS specialist to make sure we have all of the
materials we need for the County's submission to DOJ. She will be in contact with
County staff to obtain the information we need from your office to complete the
necessary submission. Ms. Brown also is responsible at the Firm for functions that
prepare cities and other governmental entities for elections as well as for consultation
regarding records management, policy development, office administration, and training
of personnel. Under attorney supervision, she reviews processes and procedures to ensure
compliance with local, state and federal law. Ms. Brown worked in the City of Austin's
City Clerk's Office for 22 years prior to joining the Firm. She is Texas Registered
Municipal Clerk #92 and has received her Master Municipal Clerk's designation from
The International Institute of Municipal Clerks. She is a member of the Capital Chapter
of City Clerks, Texas Municipal Clerks Association, and International Municipal Clerks
Institute. She is not an attorney and is not licensed to practice law.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Initial schedule planning. The Finn will consult with the Commissioners
Court and establish a tentative schedule for performance of the various
tasks for which the Firm has been engaged. This would include
scheduling Commissioners Court meetings, work sessions and public
meetings; establishing target dates for presentation of proposed plans for
Commissioners Court consideration and/or for public discussion;
establishing the target deadline for Commissioners Court adoption of a
redistricting plan and the target deadline for submission of a preclearance
request to the Department of Justice. The Fitm will counsel the
Commissioners Court and clearly define its responsibility in the
redistricting process.
2. Conduct training sessions. If desired, the Firm will also schedule
training sessions or workshops for the Commissioners Court or any
County Staff who will be involved with the County's redistricting process.
Possible topics inchide overview of applicable legal. standards;
development of redistricting criteria; organization and coordination of
redistricting process and schedule; role of public input and conduct of
public meetings; required documentation for preclearance submission; and
GIS and demographic capabilities.
3. Identify and begin other Census-release tasks. Tasks in this category
may include: (i) collecting data concerning existing Commissioners Court
member voting district boundaries, to be input into the Firm's
GIS/redistricting software databases, and verified, and any other
demographic or boundary related data or information the County may
have; (ii) assisting the County with preparation of draft resolutions, public
notices, and other documents likely to be needed during the process (and
preparation of their translation into Spanish); and (iii) identifying and
beginning to collect data and documents likely needed as part of any
ultimate preclearance submission.
The Firm is experienced in the use of census data and Tiger/Line files and
is capable of drawing districts at various levels of geography. Where
possible, the geographical units the Firm recommends be used are election
(voting) precincts, which in census terminology are known as voting
tabulation districts or VTDs. This is especially appropriate in the context
of seeking to avoid Shaw v. Reno liability. In the event of unforeseen
appropriate circumstances, the Firm would use VTD geography with
census population data.
The Firm will work and coordinate with US Census Bureau to minimize
under count of persons in the County and will provide assistance on BAS
and LUCA survey responses by County to the extent required.
4. Performing an initial assessment. The Firm will examine the new
population data and compare it to the existing County boundaries, to
determine whether cur-ent election districts have become sufficiently
unbalanced in population as to require the County to engage in
redistricting. This initial assessment will be presented to and discussed
with the Commissioners Court. The firm will also provide an assessment
of County Election Precinct changes that maybe required.
5. Development and adoption of criteria for redistricting. The Firm will
assist the Commissioners Court in identifying and adopting practical and
legal criteria to be followed during the redistricting process. In light of
Shaw v. Reno-type of cases and the standards that have emerged from
them, this is a critical element of a successful redistricting process, and
important to establishing defensibility of an adopted plan against later
litigation.
6. Develop redistricting plans. The Firm will develop redistricting plans
for Commissioners Court members' election districts, using the Firm's GIS
and demographic capabilities. The Firm will work with the
Commissioners Court to develop plans suitable for preclearance
submission, and which take into account, consistent with the applicable
legal requirements, the various practical and political considerations the
Commissioners Court determines are relevant. We anticipate that a
number of plans may be developed, each responding to a different set of
considerations proposed by the Commissioners Court and that some
modifications or refinements may be required before a plan is acceptable
to the Commissioners Court. As desired, the Firm will provide written.
materials in support or explanation of any plans developed at the
Commissioners Court's request by the Firm.
7. Advise the Court re~ardin~ the merits of plan(s). The Firm will advise
the Commissioners Court of the relative legal and practical merits of
particular plans under consideration. Members of the Firm will attend
meetings of the Commissioners Court at which plans are presented and
discussed. As desired, the Firm will provide written materials in support
or explanation of any plans evaluated by the Firm at the Commissioners
Court's request. In addition, the Firm will provide an independent
assessment of any plans under serious consideration. This assessment will
verify whether and how the plan under consideration satisfies the
applicable legal standards and whether adopted redistricting criteria appear
to have been followed.
8. Conduct public presentation and discussion of proposed plans.
Typically, one or more plans proposed by the County will be presented for
public comment. The Firm will conduct public presentations of proposed
plans and summarize public comments for the Commissioners Court.
Testimony at each hearing will be transcribed by a certified court reporter.
The gist of such meetings, public comments on the specific plans
presented, and the County's responses, should be characterized in the
preclearance submission. Our experience is that the time and cost for
attorney review of such meetings associated with preparation. of the
submission package is greatly reduced - by more than the cost of the
reporter - if there is an accurate printed transcript on which to rely, in lieu
of poring over tapes of the meetings, from which identification of the
various speakers is difficult at best, if not impossible, and which may
suffer unpredictably from poor sound quality or even wholly missed
portions of meetings.
9. Advise and draw County Election Precincts. As part of the
Redistricting project, the Firm will assist the County in adjusting County
Election Precincts to conform to any boundary changes, to provide for
more efficient and convenient voter access, and to facilitate access to
polling locations.
10. Advise and draw Justice Precincts. If required by the County
Commissioners, the Firm will advise the County on Justice Precinct
adjustments. The Firm has extensive experience in the adjustment of
county justice precincts and can provide detailed assistance in this regard.
11. Preparation of preclearance submission. Upon adoption of a plan, the
Firm will prepare the required Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance
submission for the Department of Justice, including assembling all
documentation required.
As the County is aware, under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, any
redistricting plan adopted by the Commissioners Court will need to be
approved by the Department of Justice or by a three judge district court in
the District of Columbia before it can be implemented. The Firm has
prepared hundreds of submissions to the Department of Justice and
routinely does this for its redistricting clients. It is important that the
submission not be thought of as merely something that happens at the end
of the process. Rather, the redistricting process should be specifically
designed to address the issues that will be important to the Department of
Justice and to develop the material that will need to be included in the
submission. It is also important to remember that the submission process
involves not only the written submission materials, but often also includes
a substantial effort to respond to clarifying questions posed by the
Department and to its requests for additional information. The Firm will
work with County to submit plan to any other required agency.
12. Responding to DOJ requests for additional information. During the
Department of Justice's review of the preclearance submission, it may
request additional information. The Firm will prepare responses to those
requests and deal directly with DOJ to answer any questions. Irt umisual
circumstances, it maybe desirable for Commissioners Court members and
members of the Firn to visit with DOJ officials in Washington D.C. We
do not anticipate such circumstances to arise, but in the event such
circumstances arose, the Firni would be available to meet with DOJ
personnel.
13. Ongoing legal counsel and consulting. The Firm will be available
through the conclusion. of the submission stage to provide ongoing legal
counsel and consulting to the County concerning the redistricting process,
related requirements, the plan(s) considered and the plan adopted, the
County's preclearance submission, and initial implementation of any
precleared plan. This does not include counseling regarding any specific
litigation brought against the County, which would fall under the category
of litigation representation.
14. Litigation. In the event there is actual litigation, the Firm will be
available to counsel the County about the likely merits of any suit or claim
brought or anticipated to be brought imminently, or to defend the
challenge. The Firm would. also be available to advise the County
regarding potential litigation arising after the submission process is
concluded.
A major goal of the redistricting process is to design a plan that will avoid
litigation and liability. The Firm tries during the process to minimize the
likelihood of a legal challenge by advising the client of the most legally
defensible plan and by being sure that the process produces a record that
can be used to demonstrate that the adopted plan complies with the
applicable legal standards. Sometimes, however, when the opponents of a
plan are unsuccessful in the political arena, they will move their battle to
the courthouse. In those instances, the Firm is prepared to defend the plan
as it has extensive experience in litigating Voting Rights Act and Shaw v.
Reno issues. As described earlier, the Firm has unique experience in Shaw
v. Reno-type cases, because of its success in the Chen v. City of Houston
case. The relevant members of the Firm are licensed in the U.S. Supreme
Court and various lower federal courts, including in particular the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLp
8711 8. MoYae Expressway Building One, Saite 300 ~~uetin, 'Cexas 78X6 (512) -diL-8021 Fax (512) 820-5638 www.hickerst.aff'.com
Febniary 19, 2010
Honorable Pat Tinley
Kerr County Judge
700 Main Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
Re: Legal Services
Dear Judge Bradley:
Thank you for selecting our law firnl to represent Kerr County. We appreciate your
confidence in us and will do our best to continue to merit it.
The purpose of this letter, together with the enclosed "Standard Terms of Engagement," is
to set out our understanding with respect to the specific terms of our relationship. Please review
the Standard Tern1s of Engagement carefully and contact us promptly if you have any questions
regarding our relationship. This letter, together with the Standard Terms of Engagement,
constitutes our agreement with you (this "Agreement") under which our services will be
provided.
Identity of Client
We will be representing the interests of Kerr County, Texas.
Nature and Scope of Representation
We understand that while in the future we may from time to time be employed on other
matters our present relationship is limited to representing Kerr County in connection with 2010
redistricting.
Supervision and Delegation
I will be the partner who will coordinate and supervise the services we perform on your
behalf with the assistance of Sherry McCall, or other firm GIS Specialists. I anticipate that I will
perform much of the legal. work on your project and will oversee all of the work on this matter.
We routinely delegate selected responsibilities to other persons in our Firm when, because of
special expertise, time availability or other reasons, they are in a better position to carry them out.
In addition, we will try, where feasible and appropriate, to delegate tasks to persons who can
properly perform them at the least cost to you.
Februaiy 19, 2010
Page 2
Financial Arrangements
The enclosed Standard Teens of Engagement, together with this letter, outlines the
financial teens of our engagement. My hourly rate is $350.00 per hour, and the rate of our GIS
Specialist is $150.00 per hour. The hourly rate for other attorneys will range from $250 to $350
per hour, depending on experience, and other technical staff and paralegal time is billed at
$130.00 per hour. The cost of the hiitial Assessment is a flat fee of $3,250.00, plus an hourly
charge for GIS services. If anything in this letter or the Standard Terms of Engagement is
unclear or presents a problem to you, please advise me promptly so we may discuss it and reach a
hill understanding.
Acceptance of Terms
If this arrangement is acceptable to you, please sign the enclosed duplicate original of this
letter and return it to us at your earliest convenience.
We truly appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working
with you in a mutually beneficial relationship.
Sincerely,
~J~ `r`te ~--~
David Mendez
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
KERR COUNTY, TEXAS
By:~
Judge Pat Tinley
Title: Kerr County Judge
Date:
cc: Billing Department
STANDARD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT
This statement sets forth the standard terms of our engagement as your attorneys. Unless
modified in writing by mutual agreement, these teams will be an integral part of our agreement
with you. Therefore, we ask that you review this statement carefully and contact us promptly if
you have any questions. We suggest that you retain this statement in your file.
1. The Scope of Our Work
You should have a clear understanding of the legal services we will provide. Any
questions that you have should be dealt with promptly. We will provide services related only o
matters as to which we have been specifically engaged.
We will at all times act on your behalf to the best of our ability. Any expressions on otir
part concerning the outcome of your legal matters are expressions of our best professional
judgment, but are not guarantees. Such opinions are necessarily limited by our knowledge of the
facts and are based on the state of the law at the time they are expressed. We cannot guarantee
the success of any given matter, but we will strive to represent your interests professionally and
efficiently.
2. Fees For Legal Services
Our charges for professional services are customarily based on the time devoted to the
matter, the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, the requisite experience, reputation
and skill requested to deal with. those questions, time limitations imposed by the circumstances,
and the amount involved and the results obtained. Unless otherwise indicated in writing, our fees
for legal services are determined on the basis of the hourly rates of the respective lawyers and
paralegals who perform the services. These rates vary depending on the expertise and experience
of the individual. We adjust these rates annually, increasing them to reflect experience,
expertise, and current economic conditions. We will notify you in writing if this fee structure,is
modified. At the present time the standard billing rates for partners in this firm are between $490
and $200 per hour; the billing rates for associates and staff attorneys are between $250 and $165
per hour; the billing rates for paralegals and specialists are between $150 and $110 per hour, the
billing rate for law clerks is $60 per hour, and the billing rate for case clerks is $50 per hour (all
fees quoted are in U.S. Dollars).
3. Other Charges
All out-of-pocket expenses (such. as copying charges, travel expenses, messenger
expenses and the like) incurred by us in connection with our representation of you will be billed
to you as a separate item on your monthly statement. We have enclosed a description of the most
common expenses.
4. Billing Procedures and Terms of Payment
Oi~r billing period begins on the 16t~' of the month and ends on the 15`h of the following
month. We will render periodic statements to you for legal services and expenses. We usually
mail these periodic statements toward the end of the month following the latest date covered in
the statement. You agree to pay each statement in frill in U.S. Dollars within the time for
payment established by Texas Government Code Section 2251.021 (or any successor statute).
Should you fail to pay any sum within such payment period, you promise to pay interest on all
sums overdue in accordance with the rate and provisions specified in Texas Govermnent Code
Section 2251.025 (or any successor statute).
If you have any question or disagreement about any statement that we submit to you for
payment, please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can resolve any problems
without delay. Typically, such questions or disagreements can be resolved to the satisfaction of
both sides with little inconvenience or formality.
5. Termination of Services
You have the right at any time to terminate our employment upon written notice to us,
and if you do we will immediately cease to render additional services. We reserve the right to
discontinue work on pending matters or terminate our attorney-client relationship with you at any
time that payment of your account becomes delinquent. Additionally, in the event that you fail to
follow our advice and counsel, or otherwise fail to cooperate reasonably with us, we reserve the
right to withdraw from representing you upon short notice, regardless of the then status of your
matter. No termination shall relieve you of the obligation to pay fees and expenses incurred prior
to such termination.
6. Retainers
A retainer is not required to commence work on this matter.
7. Retention of Documents
Although historically we have attempted to retain for a reasonable time copies of most
documents generated by this Firm, we are not obligated to do so, and we hereby expressly
disclaim any responsibility or liability for failure to do so. You must ultimately retain all
originals and copies you desire among your own files for future reference.
8. Fee Estimates
We are often requested to estimate the amount of fees and costs likely to be incurred in
connection with a particular matter. Our attorneys do their best to estimate fees and expenses for
particular matters when asked to do so. However, an estimate is just that, and the fees and
expenses required are ultimately a fiinction of many conditions over which we have little or no
control, especially in litigation or negotiation situations where the extent of necessary legal
services may depend to a significant degree upon the tactics of the opposition. Unless otherwise
agreed in writing with respect to a specific matter, all estimates made by us shall be subject to
your agreement and understanding that such estimates do not constitute maximum or fixed fee
quotations and that the ultimate cost is frequently more or less than the amount estimated.
9. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Texas, United States of America. Venue of any case or controversy arising under or
pursuant to this Agreement shall be in Travis County, Texas, United States of America.
10. uestions
If you have any questions from time to time about any aspect of our arrangements, please
feel entirely free to raise those questions. We want to proceed in our work for you with a clear
and satisfactory understanding about every aspect of our billing and payment policies; and we
encourage an open and frank discussion of any or all of the matters mentioned in this
memorandum.
Client Costs Advanced
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
The Finn incurs expenses on behalf of clients only when required by the legal needs of the
clients. Some cases or matters require extensive use of copy facilities, and other cases may not
be so paper intensive. Standard services such as secretarial and word processing time, file setup,
and file storage are not charged; however, other expenses such as copies, delivery fees, and fax
charges are billed to the client needing those services. An explanation of the billing structure is
as follows:
Delivery Services
Outside delivery services are used for pick-up and delivery of documents to the client as
well as to courts, agencies, and opposing parties. Outside delivery fees are charged to t11e
client at the rate charged to the Firm. Overnight delivery services are also charged at the
rate charged to the Firm. The Firm's Office Services Department personnel may provide
delivery service in urgent situations and charges for such in-house service will not exceed
the charge that would be made by an outside service in a similar situation..
Postage
Our postal equipment calculates exact U.S. postage for all sizes and weights of posted
material. The rate charged for postage is the same as the amount affixed to the material
that is mailed. We will not charge clients for postage on routine correspondence;
however, the cost of large-volume mail, certified mail, or other additional mail services
will be charged to the client.
Copies
Our standard rate for black and white copies made by Firm personnel is $0.15 per copy.
Color copies are charged at a standard rate of $0.55 per copy. These charges cover paper,
equipment costs, and other supplies. If savings can be realized within the required time
frame by sending copy jobs to subcontractors, the Firm uses only qualified legal services
copiers and the cost charged to the client is the same as the amount billed to the Firm.
Mates and Color Prints
Plan maps (or other maps or color diagrams, etc.) will be charged at the following rates:
$85.00 per map for large-size forn~at (34" x 44"); $55.00 fora 22" x 34" large-side
format map; $20.00 per map for medium-size fornlat (11" x 17"); $8.00 per map for
shall-size forn~at (8 ''/2" x 11"); and $2.00 for non-map color prints. If large rnimbers of
color or large- or medium-format copies are required or requested, if limited available
internal plotter resources require it, or if savings may be realized by doing so and time
permits, an outside reproduction service maybe used; the client will be charged the actual
costs incurred by the firm for such reproductions or copies.
Computerized Research
If a case requires the use of computerized legal research, trained and skilled legal
researchers are used to minimize on-line data charges. The per-minute fees for on-line
connect time are charged to the client at the rate charged to the Finn, plus applicable
taxes and surcharges imposed by governmental entities.
Fax
Fax copies will be charged at the rate of $.25 per page.
Travel
Attorney and paralegal time spent traveling on behalf of a client is billed to the client.
Hotel, meal, local transportation, and similar expenses are charged based on receipts and
travel expense forms submitted by the attorney. Documentation is available to the client
if requested.
Other Expenses
Expenses incurred to outside providers in connection with the client's legal services
should be paid by the client directly to the outside provider unless specifically arranged in
advance. If the Firm agrees to pay outside providers, the cost charged to the client is the
same as the amount billed to the Firm. Examples of such charges include: court reporter
fees, filing fees, newspaper charges for publication notices, expert witness fees,
consultants and other similar expenses. Such expenses will be incurred only in
conjunction with client-approved activities.
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, Ken- County, Texas (County), by and through its Commissioners
Court and pursuant to all relevant authority, desires to retain and acquire legal counsel
and related professional and personal services regarding its 2010 redistricting project,
including all issues, matters, tasks, and procedures related thereto, whether performed in
2010 or afterward (project); and
WHEREAS, the County desires to retain the law firm of Bickerstaff Heath
Delgado Acosta LLP of Austin, Texas for the 2010 redistricting project due to the
experience and expertise of said law firm in certain practice areas, including redistricting,
elections, and voting rights;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the
Commissioners Court of Ken- County, Texas (Commissioners Court), for and in behalf
said County and the public interest, hereby finds and orders the following:
(1) It is necessary, proper, and advisable for the County and its
Commissioners Court to be represented by the following law firm
regarding all issues, matters, tasks, and procedures related to the
2010 redistricting project, due to the legitimate and. principal
interests of the County and the public: Bickerstaff Heath Delgado
Acosta LLP of Austin, Texas (law firm).
(2) Said law firm is hereby retained by the Commissioners Court in
behalf of the County, and formally engaged and hired, to provide
legal counsel and related professional and personal. services
regarding the 2010 redistricting project, pursuant to the contract for
legal services (said contract) hereby executed between the parties
regarding the project, said contract being attached, approved, and
incorporated by reference.
(3) Singular nouns and pronouns shall include the plural, and the
masculine gender shall include the feminine gender, where
necessary for a correct interpretation of this instrument.
(4) This resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage.
(5) All preliminary recitals of this resolution are true, correct, and
incorporated by reference.
(6) All prior acts of the County, including its elected officials,
appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and
representatives are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved
regarding the 2010 redistricting project.
1
(7) This resolution was considered, ordered, passed, and approved at a
meeting held in compliance with Chapter 551 of the Texas
Government Code, the Texas Open Meetings Act.
(8) The Commissioners Court by order hereby grants an exemption
regarding said contract from the competitive bidding and
procurement requirements of section 262.023 of the Texas Local
Government Code, pursuant to and in accordance with section
262.024 of the Texas Local Government Code and other authority,
in view of the professional and personal services to be rendered by
said law firm to the County and its Commissioners Court regarding
the 2010 redistricting project.
PASSED, ORDERED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the day of
2010.
SIGNED on the day of , 2010.
THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF
KERR COUNTY, TEXAS
County Judge
County Commissioner, Precinct 1
County Commissioner, Precinct 2
County Commissioner, Precinct 3
County Commissioner, Precinct 4
ATTEST:
County Clerk
a
Redistricting Texas Counties In 2011
Prepared by:
David Mendez, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP
November 3, 2009
Texas County Commissioner's Courts have
redistricting obligations that arise with the release
of the next federal census data in early 2011.
These obligations must be met within a limited
time frame and have significant repercussions for
the commissioners courts and other governmental
entities. This paper provides an overview of the
actions required of the Commissioner's court and
explains the timelines within which those actions
must occur,
Commissioners Court Redistricting
Obligations
Texas counties have two basic responsibilities that
are triggered by the release of the census.
1. Balancing Commissioner Precinct Population -
The County must examine the new census data
when it becomes available to determine if the
population .in the four county commissioner
precincts is in balance.
2. Adjusting County Election Precincts -The
County must also adjust county election
precincts to account for registered votex caps and
other election requirements.
In addition to these duties, a commissioner's court
has oversight authority on county justice precincts
and may adjust these for the convenience of the
people. Typically, adjustments to justice precincts,
if necessary, are undertaken by commissioners
courts at the same time as the other redistricting
duties in order to conform election precinct and
avoid undue voter confusion.
Balancing the Population in Commissioner
Precincts
The one person -one vote principle under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution applies to electoral districts of
"legislative" bodies that govern political subdivisions
such as Congress, the Texas Legislature, and Texas
Counties. Because County Commissioners make
policies and laws that affect the citizens of the
county, the one person -one vote constitutional
principle requires that each commissioner precincts
have substantially equal population.
While the Census measures many aspects of
population including age, ethnicity, racial
composition, gender, citizenship and other
factors, for one person -one vote purposes,
governmental bodies typically utilize total
population as the appropriate measurement
criteria. Although not an absolute safe harbor,
commissioner precincts are generally considered
to be in balance and thus meet the one person
- one vote requirement if the districts have
substantially equal total population, i.e., if the
total deviation does not exceed ten percent..
For County Commissioner precincts a deviation of
no more than 10610 is prima facie valid. Here is an
example of how it is calculated for a Texas County
with a population of 400,000:
17 SPONSOR ARTICLES
County Total Population = 400,000
Ideal district size =100,000 (400,000/4)
Deviation
Precinct 1	104,000	+4.0%
Precinct 2	101,000	+1.0%
Precinct 3	98,000	-2.0%
Precinct 4	97,000	-3.0%
Total Deviation 4% + (-3%)	= 7%
The County's total population is utilized to
make these calculations. Adjustments of total
population data are typically made in situations
where there is a large penal institution in the
electoral district that houses convicted felons. The
Census Bureau will count these felons as residing
at the penal institution, and in some rural counties
this penal population can constitute a significant
portion of the total population of the county.
Since felons are disenfranchised of their right to
vote, it is appropriate in some instances to adjust
for these populations in calculating deviation.
Adjustments to deduct penitentiary inmates are
fairly common in small counties, but less so in
large counties where the impact is ineligible.
Balancing Registered Voters in County
Blection Precincts
The Texas Legislature has long required that a
commissioner's court periodically review county
election precincts for compliance with certain
size limitations and other statutory criteria.
Because the decennial redistricting process affect
many county election precincts, the county
election precincts must be reviewed by the
commissioner's court after redistricting to check
for appropriateness of size and to insure that
election precincts do not contain territory of mare
than one precinct or office.
TEXAS ELECTION CODE Section 42.006 requires
that a county election precinct must contain at least
100, but not more than 5,000 registered voters.
In addition to size requirements, a county election
precinct, including a consolidated precinct, may riot
contain territory from more than one of each of the
following types of territorial units:
• a commissioners precinct;
• a justice precinct;
• a congressional district;
• a state representative district;
• a state senatorial district;
• award in a city with a population of 10,000 or
more; or
• a State Board of Education district.
See, TEXAS ELECTION CODE Section 42.005.
The adjustment of election precincts involves
a coordinated dance between the county
commissioner's court, the Texas Legislature, and
larger cities within the territory of the county.
In some instances, the courts also try to cut into
this dance. Changes by county commissioner's
court to the commissioner precinct and justice
precinct lines will typically split election precincts
and these splits are easily identified by the
County and adjusted. More complex issues arise
as to timing and structure, when the County
has to adjust election precincts to account for
changes in electoral districts made by other
political subdivisions. For example, legislative
redistricting efforts may affect the ability of
some counties to complete their county election
precinct adjustments in a timely manner. While
Texas Counties may complete their commissioner
precinct redistricting quickly, historically, the
Texas Legislature has not been quite as quick to
complete the drawing of state legislative districts
and congressional districts. Also, litigation
involving those districts has often delayed the
finalization of those electoral districts. $ecause
county election precincts cannot contain territory
from more than one of these state and federal
districts, the finalization of the drawing of
precincts in some counties has been delayed and in
SPONSOR ARTICLES 18
some instances election precincts have had to be
redrawn multiple times.
Because other political subdivisions use county
election precincts to conduct elections, the same
type of issues can arise with these entities. For
example, if there are cities with ward or single
member district systems in the county that have
a population of more than 10,000, the county
election precincts must be adjusted to avoid having
territory from more than one single member district
in an election precinct. The Election Code does
not generally prohibit splitting election precincts
with school district single-member district lines,
but counties will often want to coordinate election
precinct lines with school district boundaries for
ease in election administration.
Adjustments to Justice Precincts
The Texas Constitution allows county commissioner's
courts to divide counties into Justice of the Peace
precincts based on population as follows:
Population Nurnber of Precincts
Less than 18,000 1-4 precincts
18,000 to 49,999 2-8 precincts
50,000 4-8 precincts
A commissioner's court has authority to abolish
existing justice precincts, establish or reduce the
number of justice/constable places within a justice
precinct, or to modify the territorial boundaries of
the precincts. However, the Constitution provides
that "any county that is divided into four ox more
Timeline for 2 011 Redistricting
and Subsequent General Election
19 L7PfJNSUR ARTICLBS
©2008 Bickerstaff Heath Aelgado Acosta LLP
precincts on November 2,1999 shall continue to be
divided into not less than four precincts" Article V,
Section 18, Texas Constitution.
Timing Issues for the Completion of
Redistricting
The Secretary of Commerce is required to conduct
the next decennial census on Apri11, 2010.
Detailed population figures must be released to the
states for use instate and local redistricting efforts
on or before April 1, 2011. We expect this data to
be released in January or February 2011.
Texas County Commissioner's Courts will need
to take into consideration the 2010 census data
upon its release, and determine if the population
of the four county commissioner precincts is out
of balance. As a practical matter, a commissioner's
court must complete the redistricting process
by January 1, 2012 so candidates for county
commissioner precinct positions are able to
determine which precinct they will file for in the
March 2012 primaries.
Most Texas cities, school districts, colleges and
special districts that have asingle-member district
structure for electing their governing boards and
that are on a May uniform election cycle, must
complete their redistricting process in time to
allow for the May 2012 Elections. Most of these
entities rely on county election precincts to
conduct their elections, so they also have a stake
in the completion of the county redistricting and
election precinct redraw.
Conclusion
While this paper focuses on the framework
and timing within which redistricting takes
place, Texas Counties need to he aware that the
redistricting process in Texas also involves the
application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
and other complex legal principles. The County
must assure itself that it has not only organized
the county's process but must also be certain
that its legal representatives have the depth
and experience to guide the County through the
complexities of the law and the challenges that
inevitably will be faced.
SPONSOR ARTICLES 20
i a
hn~{
~:~,
~ o
N ~
U W
c7 y
z ~ ~z
:iyy~
~~~~
~n~_~
Ciro-~r
on~Y -J'
C'-6_ ~G,
~~o
~yy~ _
_~y
3 ~ y~~-` M
~~Jf-CS'n SA 1'
^~
1~
~5~. _ Vl
t~ii
lam'
•y ~ OT3m
O ~ c a
O ~ V .' i ,
~ ~ s
ti ~ +~+~ u~ ~ 6.~ vim'
O `' c~ 8~ T
N ,4; Qj '~= h=
.i d
a
R„ _ -
b ~ J
	~ ~ ~
~	a V
~
ti
a3~
~	
,~ d
o~~~	
~.
t_ ._ -_ ~.~.a
~	a
°
v
~
~
	}
~
a
i~ ~
v °~' ~ A
	A
..


~	4 >
o+-
y3
~ ~ ~ j
	y`r
~~	
°o 'ti ' ~	
N ~ ~ ~

O ~' v	
o i
$
~~ .
~	
~; r
{
'
	~
	r
N
o ,~
N ~ .~
U ~~ _y
P, W
ZTOZ

	~-' C
~ w

.a	
aJ	~
~ .:~
~
C
m r~i~ ^
waa	O N
~~'?~	.
~~A
~~ 7
		

Pr
c u	3! ~
C O
~ m ~a	w .~
~ "~
va
	~,,.~	
~ a
~	~A o
' H	
	~	a
v ~
c ~ o ~
° °' ~ a 'C
.. y U
toy
~ IOZ
6Q~Z
a
a
0
d
b
m
on
N
Q
Gl
x
U
fA
CO
a
N
n

Counties
i1,'CI14'r LOtif?t'y,=
Austin County
Bandera County
Baylor County
Bee County
8~~~.;^r Cots€ttp
Brrzas Cour~rr
C:ass Coumy
Caldwell County
C.~ilah;gn CaJ ~il7 hJ
Utamt>er5 Co~n;,•'Y
Coleman County
Ca+arac;c+ C:^unrv
Dallam County
Dallas County
EI Paso County
Fayette County
Galveston County
Gillespie County
Grimes County
Guadakt,~e Cnisnty
Ha+ni'aon C~uryr~r
Hardin County
Haskell County
Hdaigc County
Hopkins County
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Kaufman County
Kendall County
Kerr County
Krrox County
LamNasas Cou;aty
lee County
Li4;eriy County
Lynn County
Live Oak County
Llano County
Madison County
Martin County
Matagorda County
Marion County
Midland County
FU1itc1':ctli CotF+,`v
Moore County
Nacogdoches County
Panola County
Palo Pinto County
Pecos County
Reagan Caumy
Robertson County
Rurtreis County
Schieicner Cou{qty
Scurry County
Sterling County
Sutton County
~Tarras'tt ~q!.;{tiy
',Val Verde County
Wa(ier C ,ratty
Washington County
'..Wharton County
Wli;s+r;er Ceurisy
Williamson County
.Wise County
Wood Couniv
Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Aco	sta LLP
-Client List -	
Cifles	Schools
Alvin	Austin ISD
I~~:'~•af,tr.	Ballinger ISD
'Beeville	Brady iSD
Brenham	Bsyan ISD
Bryan	Coleman ISD
Lameron	Crocker ( ~:>rf. ~ __,
Crosbytan	Crosby[onISD
Del Rio	D-Hams ISD
Denton	Oaingerfield-LoneStar ISD
Eldorado	3aliar: tSD
Gainesville	Del Valle ISD
Galveston	Fork Davis ISD
Georgetown	Galveston ISD
Grand Prakie	Grady ISD
Greenville	Greenville ISD
Houston	Henderson ISD
Jasper	Houston ISD
Killeen	Kerrville ISD
La Grange	Klondike ISU
La Porte	McCamey ISD
Midland	Midland ISD
Mineral Wells	Norttt East ISD
Missouri City	Port Arthur !SD
Port Arthur	Schie!rtter ISD
Port Lavaca	Stanton ISD
Sterling City	Sterling City ISD
Sugar Land	Socorro ISD
Temple	TylerlSD
Waco	W~inteY,<- {SU
W.hartt7n	
Special Districts	Commutlity Colleges
artcr. Sport{s (BSL'~C:Gj	Blinn College
alhoun Co Navigation	Brazosport College
eagan Co. Hospital	Daiias County
~utheast Trinity Groundwater	Houston Community College
Conservation District	Victoria College
rinity Bay Conservation District	
State of Texas	Post 1001 Redistrieting Cilents
ttorney General(LRB	City of Weslaco
ffice of the lieutenant	City of Denton
GovernorjSenate Jurisprudence	City of lrvmg
Committee	City of Kerrville
	City of Galveston
	City of Harlingen
	Liberty County
	Dallas ISD
	Alamo College Distric*.
LitlgaNan Cases:
of Amarillo
of Farmers Branch
of Irving
g ISD
~r County
Red t ~ ;otcrt l~ '1 & ]_ttr} R~c3!sTrrE ~ 'lie+a
Black Denotes 2001 Redistricting Client Dn;y
Blr;c: Denotes 1.991. Redistricting Client Gnly
2 2+201 D