WPC~  1XėL$K4}~w)\av\p0 deb]@ȋ7zt^ T'fƱ9mprroxzOzA2}}sQAь^ pzUNDLޙu 0 0 0 0ۥ 0Ʀ 0 0 0u 0T 00 0 0 0ͭ 0 0| 0O 0 0 0 0 0u 0P 0( 0 0Ϸ 0 0j 003 0<c 0 0>] 0v 0` 0`q 0`Ѽ 0`1 0` 08 0) 02 0- 0:) 0Yc 0_ 0  0j% 0 B* D/= D+l 0 D/ 0J 06 0N 0:V 0^ 0<U6*U>`U*u>">`RAEG'Pw)7AY<tF*K333(k ABM 0.8cr80 6          w9PVmm0Nx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(7$      8/?=d?=d8    V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` XXd8      54<2,2,t[24&)(leyQ..i)3   StylParagr[..<2,2eofitsVy8Document[4]Document Style.. . XXd8      54<2,2,t[24&)(leyQ..i)3   StylParagr[..<2,2eofV 9{8Document[6]Document Style8... XXd8      54<2,2,t[24&)(leyQ..i)3   StylParagr[..<V 9w8Document[5]Document Style0... XXd8      54<2,2,t[24&)(leyQ..i)3   StylParagr[..<V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` Ԁ      54<2,2,t[24&)(leyQ..i)3   StylParagr[..<2,2eofitsz` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. lE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. \h6Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12ptO1H  9`("Courier NewTTOV4Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft  =Y(Xdd=:%\  `$Times NewRoman(2[m$ 7!      8?=dd8     & A`ArialTTltt8Italic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[7|A`$ArialTTR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style%( )    (&'(($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0    A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( + ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?u2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper 3(2[m$ 7!      8?=dd8     % [  `*Times New RomanTT 2Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser X   C"3 HA`$ArialTTCXXXO1<6X9`("Courier NewTTO#12Xd#<6X9`("Courier NewTTH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT  .+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?7(X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?7(X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial Uu$  }( XX    28    _Id.at___. Uu$  }( XX    29    _Id.at___. 4 Uu$  }( XX    30    _Perryv._Cotera_,No.030100476CV(Tex.App."Austin2001)(per_curiam_)(unpublished). 4 Uu$  }( XX    31    __Rivas_Ԁv._Cuellar_,No.200133760(152ndDist.Ct.,HarrisCounty,Tex.,filedJuly3,2001). Uu$  }( XX    32    _Seenote7,supra.  Uu$  }( XX    37    _SeeTex.Civ._Prac_.&Rem.Code51.014(b)( AninterlocutoryappealunderSubsection(a)shallhave  theeffectofstayingthecommencementofatrialinthetrialcourtpendingresolutionoftheappeal.). 7 Uu$  }( XX    35    _RepresentativeGreen,RepresentativeLee,Representative_Lampson_,Bellow,_Guillory_,Bland,andDavis. ; Uu$  }( XX    38    __Laney_Ԁv._Cuellar_,No.010100758(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.],noticefiledSept.5,2001). Uu$  }( XX    39    _44Tex.Sup.Ct.J.___(Sept.7,2001).  Uu$  }( XX    76    _Whitev._Weiser_,412U.S.783,794(1973)(quotingReynoldsv.Sims,377U.S.533,586(1964)).  Uu$  }( XX    42    __ASARCO_,Inc.v._Kadish_,490U.S.605,617(1989)(notingthattheconstraintsofArticleIIIoftheU.S.  Constitutiondonotapplytostatecourts,andciting_Bateman_Ԁv.Arizona,429U.S.1302,1305(Rehnquist,CircuitJustice  1976)).  Uu$  }( XX    44    _Williamsv.Lara,___S.W.3d___,___(Tex.2001)(citing_Bateman_);Texas_Assn_ԀofBus.v.TexasAir  ControlBd.,852S.W.2d440,444(Tex.1993).  Uu$  }( XX    43    _See,e.g.,_Mayhew_Ԁv.TownofSunnyvale,964S.W.2d922,928929(Tex.1998). Uu$  }( XX    41    _See13AWright,supranote40,3532.1,at114. 7 Uu$  }( XX    40    _See13CharlesAlanWright,ArthurR.Miller,&EdwardH.Cooper,FederalPracticeand  Procedure3529,at278279(2ded.1984). Uu$  }( XX    46    _RegionalRailReorganizationActCases,419U.S.102,140(1974).  Uu$  }( XX    47    _13AWright,supranote40,3532,at104(2001Supp.)(citedandquotedinTexasv.UnitedStates,523  U.S.296,300(1998),andThomasv.UnionCarbideAgric.Prods.Co.,473U.S.568,580581(1985)). j Uu$  }( XX    48    __Suitum_Ԁv.TahoeRegionalPlanningAgency,520U.S.725,733n.7(1997);Renov.CatholicSocial_Servs_.,  Inc.,509U.S.43,57n.18(1993);Buckleyv._Valeo_,424U.S.1,114(1976);RegionalRailReorganizationActCases,  419U.S.at138;see13AWright,supranote.40,3532.1,at114115.  Uu$  }( XX    50    _E.g.,Buckley,424U.S.at113114(consideringeventsafterthecourtofappealsdecision);RegionalRail  ReorganizationActCases,419U.S.at140(statingthatripenessisgovernedbythepresentsituationratherthantheone  existingwhenthetrialcourtruled).  Uu$  }( XX    51    _13AWright,supranote40,3532.1,at136137.Butsee15James_Wm_.Moore,etal.,Moores  FederalPractice101.74(3ded.2000)(statingwithoutcitingauthority: Theburdenisontheplaintifftoallege  inthecomplaintsufficientfactstoestablishthecourtsjurisdiction.Thecourtwillreviewtheissueforripenessasof  thetimethelitigationiscommenced.Themattermusthavebeenripeforreviewatthattime;subsequentripeningof ` X theissuewhilethematterisunderthecourtsconsiderationonajurisdictionalmotiontodismissisnotsufficientto (  conferthecourtwithjurisdictionthatdidnotoriginallyexistwhentheactionwasinitiated.). Uu$  }( XX    55    _Id.at442_443. Uu$  }( XX    59    _22S.W.3d849(Tex.2000).  Uu$  }( XX    52    __Balderas_Ԁv.Texas,CivilNo.6:01CV158(E.D.Tex.,orderfiledJuly23,2001);_Mayfield_Ԁv.Texas,Civil  No.6:01CV218(E.D.Tex.,orderfiledJuly23,2001);Manleyv.Texas,CivilNo.6:01CV231(E.D.Tex.,filedJuly  23,2001). Uu$  }( XX    53    _971S.W.2d439,442(Tex.1998). Uu$  }( XX    54    _Id.(quoting13Wright,supranote40,3532,at112). Uu$  }( XX    60    _Id.at851852(quotingPatterson,971S.W.2dat442)(emphasisinoriginal). Uu$  }( XX    64    _13AWright,supranote40,3532.1,at130. ~ Uu$  }( XX    65    _Wyattv.ShawPlumbingCo.,760S.W.2d245,247248(Tex.1988);Curtisv.Gibbs,511S.W.2d263,267  (Tex.1974);Clevelandv.Ward,285_S.W._Ԁ1063,1070(Tex.1926).  Uu$  }( XX    63    __Mayfield_Ԁv.Texas,No.2:00CV268(E.D.Tex.,orderfiledApr.26,2001);Leev.Texas,No.6:01CV98  (E.D.Tex.,orderfiledApr.26,2001);AssociatedRepublicansofTexasv.Texas,No.W01CA083(W.D.Tex.,order  filedMay8,2001). Uu$  }( XX    74    _377U.S.533,583(1964). Uu$  }( XX    75    _Seenotes17and18,supra. Uu$  }( XX    87    _See42U.S.C.1973c.  Uu$  }( XX    45    _16BWright,supranote40,4023,at353(2ded.1996).Seealso_Mayhew_,964S.W.2dat929n.1( While  stateprocedurallawgenerallydeterminesthemannerinwhichafederalquestionistobepresentedinstatecourt,that  isnotthecaseiffederalsubstantivelawdefinesitsownproceduralmatrix.)(citingLaurenceH.Tribe,American  ConstitutionalLaw324,at166(2ded.1988)). Uu$  }( XX    72    _Patterson,971S.W.2dat442(quoting13Wright,supranote40,3532,at112). Uu$  }( XX    91    _Walkerv.Packer,827S.W.2d833,839(Tex.1992). Uu$  }( XX    97    _511S.W.2d263,268(Tex.1974). C Uu$  }( XX    98    _695S.W.2d564,567(Tex.1985);accordHallv._Lawlis_,907S.W.2d493,495(Tex.1995)(per_curiam_). Uu$  }( XX    79    _See_H.J._ԀofTex.,77thLeg.,R.S.30193098(2001). Uu$  }( XX    73    _AbbottLabs.v.Gardner,387U.S.136,149(1967).(3e$ 7!      8?=dd8      $ Uu$  }( XX    78    _Tex.Const.art.III,32( Nobillshallhavetheforceofalaw,untilithasbeenreadonthreeseveraldays  ineachHouse,andfreediscussionallowedthereon;butfour-fifthsoftheHouse,inwhichthebillmaybepending,may  suspendthisrule,theyeasandnaysbeingtakenonthequestionofsuspension,andentereduponthejournals.). Uu$  }( XX    61    _Id.at850. Uu$  }( XX    99    _Clevelandv.Ward,285_S.W._Ԁ1063,1071(Tex.1926). . Uu$  }( XX    71    _Cf.Leachv.Brown,292S.W.2d329,311(Tex.1956)(treatinganamendedpetitionasanewactionin  certaincircumstances). Uu$  }( XX    62    _Id.at851. Y Uu$  }( XX    56    _Id.at441(explainingthatwitnesstestifiedattrialthatthestateagency hadnotyetmadeanyfinalorofficial  decisionsand wasconsideringtwoplans). Uu$  }( XX    58    _Id.at444(emphasisadded). Uu$  }( XX    57    _Id. Uu$  }( XX    68    _Id.at248. Uu$  }( XX    69    _Cleveland,285_S.W._Ԁat1071. & Uu$  }( XX    18    _AssociatedRepublicansofTexasv.Texas,No.W01CA083(W.D.Tex.,orderfiledMay8,2001)  (memorandumandorderat6). Uu$  }( XX    70    _Id.(citing1FreemanonJudgments335(5thed.)). Uu$  }( XX    66    _Wyatt,760S.W.2dat246247. Uu$  }( XX    67    _Id. Uu$  }( XX    80    _SeeS.J.ofTex.,77thLeg.,R.S.1964(2001). Uu$  }( XX    49    _AbbottLabs.v.Gardner,387U.S.136,149(1967).H Uu$  }( XX    81    _See_H.J._ԀofTex.,77thLeg.,R.S.51185147(2001). Uu$  }( XX    82    _Tex.Const.art.III,24(b). v Uu$  }( XX    88    _Cf._Carstens_Ԁv._Lamm_,543F.Supp.68(D.Colo.1982)(attemptingtodeterminewhenlegislative  proceedingshadreachedanimpasse). m Uu$  }( XX    90    _RepublicanPartyofTexasv._Dietz_,940S.W.2d86,9394(Tex.1997);Searsv._Bayoud_,786S.W.2d248,  249250(Tex.1990). Uu$  }( XX    92    _Id.840.  Uu$  }( XX    93    __Huie_Ԁv._DeShazo_,922S.W.2d920,927928(Tex.1996). Uu$  }( XX    83    __Growe_Ԁv._Emison_,507U.S.25(1993). Uu$  }( XX    84    _See42U.S.C.1973c. Uu$  }( XX    85    _Tex.Elec.Code172.023. Uu$  }( XX    86    _Id.41.007. Uu$  }( XX    89    _44Tex.Sup.Ct.J.1056(Aug.1,2001)(citingTex.R.App.P.52.3(e)).  Uu$  }( XX    94    _Walker,827S.W.2dat842(quoting_Iley_Ԁv.Hughes,311S.W.2d648,652(Tex.1958). Uu$  }( XX    95    __Growe_Ԁv._Emison_,507U.S.25(1993). Uu$  }( XX    96    _925S.W.2d591,596597(Tex.1996). & Uu$  }( XX    77    _AssociatedRepublicansofTexasv.Texas,No.W01CA083(W.D.Tex.,orderfiledMay8,2001)  (memorandumandorderat6). 7!      8?=dd8     _@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTEXAS   @44$ P H @%No.010728 @ 8 @44$ 0 (   RickPerry,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernorofthe  StateofTexas,andHenry_Cuellar_,inhisofficialcapacity 0( asSecretaryofStateoftheStateofTexas,Petitioners PH    @)v. `X    AliciaDelRio,PhyllisDunham,andJeremyWright, @8  Respondents `X   @$$ ph @EEOnPetitionforReviewfromthe `X @U U CourtofAppealsfortheThirdDistrictofTexas PH @$$ @8 @  !consolidatedwith!    @44$  @%No.010810  @44$    RickPerry,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernorofthe ! StateofTexas,andHenry_Cuellar_,inhisofficialcapacity " asSecretaryofStateoftheStateofTexas,Petitioners $   @)v. &   Martha_Cotera_,Respondent ' !   @$$ *"# @EEOnPetitionforReviewfromthe *#$ @U U CourtofAppealsfortheThirdDistrictofTexas +$% @$$ ,%&  -&' Ї@  !consolidatedwith!   @44$  @%No.010827   @44$     InreKenBentsen,etal.,Relators     @$$  @ OnPetitionforWritofMandamustothe   @/ / 281stDistrictCourtinHarrisCounty   @$$   @NN ArguedSeptember10,2001  h`    Justice_Hecht_,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichChiefJusticePhillips,Justice 80 Enoch,JusticeOwen,Justice_Hankinson_,JusticeONeill,JusticeJefferson,andJustice (  Rodriguezjoined.    JusticeBakerissuedadissentingopinion.    FourcaseschallengingtheconstitutionalityoftheStatescongressionaldistrictsinlightof  the2000decennialcensus,allinvolvingessentiallythesameissues,parties,lawyers,andwitnesses,  weresetfortrialonthesameday,September10,2001,twoinadistrictcourtinTravisCountyo `#  1      ׀and   twoinadistrictcourtinHarrisCounty.r  `#  2      ׀Beforeusaretwointerlocutoryappealsfromthecasesin h"` TravisCounty,anoriginalmandamusproceedingarisingoutofthecasesinHarrisCounty,and H$@ motionstostaythetrialsinallofthecases.Thecentraldisputeisoverwhichofthetwodistrict  courtshasdominantjurisdictionandshouldproceedtotrialfirst.Wehold,forreasonsthatwe  explain,thatthedistrictcourtinTravisCountyhasdominantjurisdictionandshouldproceedtotrial   immediately,andthatthedistrictcourtinHarrisCountyshouldabatethecasespendingthere.We   conditionallygrantthepetitionforwritofmandamusinNo.010827anddismisstheinterlocutory  appealsinNo.01-0728andNo.01-0810asmoot.Thestayswepreviouslyissuedarelifted. h`  Becauseoftheimportanceofcompletingthetrialwithdispatch,nomotionsforrehearingwillbe H@  entertained.c `#  3       (  @* I     ThemembersoftheUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentativesmustbe apportionedamong  theseveralStatesaccordingtotheirrespectivenumbersdX `#  4      ׀asdeterminedbythedecennialcensus.e `#  5      ׀  Asaresultofthe2000census,Texasisentitledtotwoadditionalcongressionaldelegates,andthus  theStatescongressionaldistrictsmustberedrawn.AlthoughtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas  held [_f]rom_Ԁthebeginningthatredistricting isprimarilyamatterforlegislativeconsiderationand h` determination,_fx `#  6      _Ԁthe77thLegislaturethisyearadjourneditsregularsessionwithoutredrawing H!@  congressionaldistricts,andtheGovernorhasnotifiedthepresidingofficersofthatbodythathewill (#  notreconveneitinspecialsessiontoconsiderredistricting atthistime._m `#  7      _ԀItthereforefallstothe   courts"firsttheTexascourtsandthenthoseoftheUnitedStates"toreconstructtheStates  congressionaldistricts._g  `#  8      _ԀThefederalcourtsmustdefer,butonlyforareasonabletime,andmayset   adeadlineforstatecourtstoact._h `#  9      _ԀThatdeadline,setbytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe   EasternDistrictofTexasinthreeofthefivecongressionalredistrictingcasesfiledinfederalcourts  thisyear,isOctober1,2001,afterwhichthefederalcourthasstatedthatifnostateredistrictingplan h`  isadopteditwillproceedinitsowncasestominimizethe riskofdisruptinganddelaying H@   elections._k `#  10      _ (    Fivecongressionalredistrictingcases,allraisingessentiallythesameissues,havebeenfiled   inTexascourts,threeinTravisCountybypersonsidentifiedwiththeDemocraticParty,j `#  11      ׀andtwo  inHarrisCountybypersonsidentifiedwiththeRepublicanParty.l `#  12      ׀TheLegislaturehasnot   providedadequateproceduresforjudicialadministrationtopreventundesirableforumshoppingand   provideasimplemeansfordesignatingasinglecourtandjudgefortrialoftheseissues,thereby  savingtaxpayersandlitigantstheunnecessarycostofmultipleproceedingsinvolvingthesame h`  issuesandpreventingdelaythatcoulddisruptthe2002elections.Therefore,wemustattemptto H@  applygenerallegalprinciplesfordeterminingdominantjurisdictionbetweencompetingtrialcourts (  toresolvethemountingdisputesthatthreatenanyfinalstatecourtresolutionofcongressional  redistrictingissuesbeforetheOctober1deadline.Todoso,wemustexplaininsomedetailthe  proceduralhistoryofthependingcases.    Thefirstcase,DelRiov.Perry,wasfiledinTravisCountyonDecember27,2000.v@ `#  13      ׀Atthat  time,noofficialcensusdatawasavailable"theU.S.SecretaryofCommercedidnotrelease  preliminarystatebystatefiguresuntilthenextday"buttheplaintiffsw `#  14      ׀assertedthatestimatesby h` theTexasLegislativeCouncil_p`  `#  15      _ԀshowedthatTexaswouldbeapportionedtwoadditional H!@ congressionalseats.Theplaintiffsacknowledgedthat theappropriateopportunityforcorrecting  theircomplaintswasintheregularlegislativesessionthatwouldconveneJanuary9,2001,but  allegedthattherewas reasontobelievethattheLegislaturewoulddeadlockoveraredistricting   plan.Theplaintiffsassertedthatthetrialcourtcouldact [_i]f_ԀtheStateofTexasfailstoenactanew   congressionalredistrictingplaninthe2001session,orifitenactsonethatislegallyinadequate.  TheplaintiffsnamedasdefendantstheStateofTexas,theGovernor,thepresidingofficersofthe h`  SenateandHouseofRepresentatives,theSecretaryofState,andthechairsoftheTexasDemocratic H@  PartyandtheTexasRepublicanParty.AllofthedefendantsexcepttheDemocraticPartychairfiled (  pleastothejurisdiction,assertingthatthecasewasnotripewhenitwasfiledandthereforethecourt  lackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction.TheDemocraticPartychairfiledapleainabatement,urgingthat  theactionbeleftpendingintheeventthatjudicialactionshouldbecomewarranted.    ThedetailedcensusdatanecessaryforredistrictingwasnotreleaseduntilMarch12,2001.  Priortothatdate,threecongressionalredistrictingcaseshadbeenfiledinfederalcourts._q `#  16      _ԀEachof  thesecaseswasdismissedforlackofripenessnecessaryforjurisdictionbecausetheLegislaturehad h` nothadanopportunitytoadoptaredistrictingplan._s `#  17      _ԀInoneofthecases,dismissedonMay8,the H!@ federalcourtstatedthat thereisnothreatthattheTexasLegislaturewillfailtoenactvalid (#  redistrictingplansbeforethenextelectioncyclebegins. `#  18      ׀Thatsameday,however,theDelRio  plaintiffsamendedtheirpetitiontoallegethatalthoughtheLegislaturehadfullaccesstothe  necessarycensusdata, thereisreasontobelievethattheStateofTexaswilldeadlockover   congressionalredistrictingandfailtoenactanewplanintheregularsessionoftheTexasLegislature   thatisnowinprogress.Theplaintiffsallegedthatnocongressionalredistrictingbillshadbeen  reportedoutofcommittee,andthatHouserulessetMay10asthelastdayfortheHousetopassits h`  ownbillsandMay18asthelastdayfortheHousetoreceiveSenatebills. Forallpractical H@  purposes,theplaintiffsasserted,itwas anearcertaintythattheLegislaturewouldfailtoredraw (  congressionaldistrictsduringitsregularsession.    OnMay15,thedistrictcourtinDelRioheardthedefendantspleastothejurisdiction  (excludingSpeaker_Laney_s)butdidnotannounceadecision.OnMay24,fourdaysbeforethe  adjournmentoftheLegislature,thesecondstateredistrictingcase,AssociatedRepublicansofTexas  v._Cuellar_,_~  `#  19      _ԀwasfiledinHarrisCounty.Thepetitionallegedthat [_d]ue_ԀtotherulesoftheTexas  Legislature,itwas almostcertainthatnoredistrictingplanofanykindwillbepassedbytheTexas h` Legislatureinitsregularsession.Thepetitiondidnotaddress,however,whethertherulesofthe H!@  HouseandSenatecouldbesuspendedtopermitlastminuteconsiderationofacongressional (#  redistrictingplan._ `#  20      _ԀWhiletheplaintiffsacknowledgedthatitremaineduncertainwhetherthe   GovernorwouldconveneaspecialsessionoftheLegislature,theyassertedthatitwasunlikely  becausetherewas nosignthattheTexasLegislaturecouldproduceaplaninaspecialsession.   Twodayslater,GovernorPerrywrotetoLieutenantGovernor_Ratliff_ԀandSpeaker_Laney_,urgingthat   theLegislaturecontinuetoworkonredistrictingaftertheregularsession,andstatingthathewould   callaspecialsessiononceacceptableplanswereproduced._y`  `#  21      _ h`    OnMay28,theLegislatureadjournedsinediewithouthavingadoptedaredistrictingplan   forthecongressionaldelegation,theSenate,theHouse,ortheStateBoardofEducation.Threedays  later,onMay31,theplaintiffsinDelRioagainamendedtheirpetition,notingthattheLegislature   hadnotredrawncongressionaldistrictsduringitsregularsession,andassertingthataspecialsession   wouldbeunlikely.Theseallegationswereechoedinanewcasefiledthesamedayinthesamecourt  againstthesamedefendants,_Cotera_Ԁv.Perry,_z `#  22      _Ԁthethirdcongressionalredistrictingcasetobefiled h`  instatecourt.Fourofthedefendants"theGovernor,theLieutenantGovernor,theSecretaryof H@  State,and_Weddington_,theRepublicanPartychair"filedpleastothejurisdictionassertingthat (  _Cotera_wasnotripewhenitwasfiledandshouldbedismissedbecauseoftherealpossibilityon  May31thattheGovernorwouldreconvenetheLegislatureinspecialsession.Indeed,thepleas  noted,itwasatthattimeevenlikelythattheGovernorwouldcallaspecialsession,giventhat  congressionalredistrictingplanshadbeenenactedinspecialsessionsin1971,1981,and1991._d `#  23      _    OnJune1,thetrialcourtinDelRioresumedthehearingonthedefendantspleastothe  jurisdictionandattheconclusion,indicatedthatitwouldoverrulethem.Thecourtsignedanorder h` tothateffectonJune13.Thedaybeforetheorderwassigned,theplaintiffs_nonsuited_ԀtheStateof H!@ Texas,hopingtoforestallaninterlocutoryappeal,whichisallowedfromanorderdenyingapleato (#  thejurisdictionbyagovernmentalunit.{ `#  24      ׀Nevertheless,theGovernor,theLieutenantGovernor,and %  theSecretaryofStatefilednoticesofappeal.Defendant_Weddington_,believingthatshewasnot  entitledtoappeal,petitionedthisCourtforreviewbymandamus.Wedenied_Weddington_spetition  formandamusbecauseshehadnotfirstpresentedittothecourtofappeals.uX `#  25      ׀Whiletheinterlocutory   appealremainedpendinginthecourtofappeals,theplaintiff_| `#  26      _Ԁin_Cotera__nonsuited_ԀtheStateof   TexasastheplaintiffshaddoneinDelRio,thetrialcourtgranteddefendant_Laney_smotionto  consolidateDelRioand_Cotera_,andthecourtoverruledthedefendantspleastothejurisdictionin h`  _Cotera_. H@    OnAugust9,thecourtofappealsaffirmedthedenialofthepleastothejurisdictioninDel (  Rio.x `#  27      ׀Althoughnoappealhadyetbeentakenfromthetrialcourtsdenialofthepleastothe  jurisdictionin_Cotera_,thecourtheldthattheplaintiffsclaimsinthatcasewereclearlyripebecause   [_o]nce_Ԁthelegislatureadjournedwithouthavingpassedaredistrictingbill,theissuewasripefor  litigation.ThentheCourtconcluded: Havingdeterminedthat_Cotera_sclaimswereripe,weneed  notdecidetheissueregardingDelRiosclaimsbecausethetwocausesarenowconsolidated.We   mustdecidetheappealbaseduponthepostureoftherecordbeforeus. `#  28      ׀Thecourtalsoheldthat h` theappellantswereentitledtotakeaninterlocutoryappealas governmentalunitsbecausethey  weresuedintheirofficialcapacities. `#  29           TheGovernor,theLieutenantGovernor,andtheSecretaryofStatealsoappealedfromthe   denialoftheirpleastothejurisdictionin_Cotera_.Theappelleesmovedthecourtofappealstoaffirm   thetrialcourtsrulingssummarilybecausetheverysameissueshadalreadybeendecidedinthe  priorappeal.OnAugust31,thecourtofappealsdismissedthe_Cotera_Ԁappealforwantof h`  jurisdiction._X `#  30      _ H@    ConcurrentwithalloftheactivityintheTravisCountycases,litigationoverthesameissues (  inHarrisCountywasnolessactive.OnJuly3,thefourthcongressionalredistrictingcaseinstate  court,_Rivas_Ԁv._Cuellar_,_ `#  31      _ԀwasfiledinHarrisCountyagainstthesamedefendantsnamedinART.The  petitionassertedthatnotonlyhadtheLegislaturenotenactedacongressionalredistrictingplan  duringitsregularsession, neitherchamberdidsubstantialworkonaplan.Thepetitionfurther  assertedthat GovernorPerryhasannouncedthathewillnotcallaspecialsessionoftheTexas  Legislature"theformalannouncement,aswehavealreadysaid,wasmadeonJuly3,x `#  32      ׀thevery h` day_Rivas_wasfiled"and [_a]s_Ԁaresult,Texasscongressionaldistrictsmaynowberedrawnonly H!@ bythecourts._Rivas_waslaterconsolidatedwithART,andonJuly24,thetrialcourtsetatrialdate (#  ofSeptember10.ThecourtinTravisCountyhadpreviouslysetDelRioand_Cotera_fortrialon %  September17,butonAugust7itadvancedthattrialsettingtoSeptember10tocoincidewiththe  trialsettinginARTand_Rivas_.ThecourtinTravisCountyconsolidatedthefifthstatecase,Connolly  v.Perry,i `#  33      ׀filedJuly24,withDelRioand_Cotera_,butlaterreverseditselfinordertopreservethe   September10trialsetting.     AnumberofpartiesintervenedinARTand_Rivas_._tX `#  34      _ԀAmongthem,RepresentativeBentsen,  alongwiththreeothermembersofCongressandothersassociatedwiththeDemocraticParty,_  `#  35      _Ԁfiled h`  apleatothejurisdictionandapleainabatementonAugust22,assertingthattheDelRiocasehad H@  dominantjurisdictionandthereforetheARTand_Rivas_casesshouldeitherbedismissedorabated. (  OnAugust28,twoother_intervenors_,Speaker_Laney_ԀandChairwomanMalcolm,servedpleadings  adoptingtheBentsengroupspleatothejurisdiction.Theplaintiffs_xH  `#  36      _Ԁinthecasesopposedthepleas.   OnAugust31,thetrialcourtoverruledthepleasoftheBentsengroupandMalcolm,butorderedthat  _Laney_sadoptionofthepleatothejurisdictionbestruckfromtherecordtoprevent_Laney_Ԁfrom  appealingandpossiblydelayingthetrial.     OnAugust10,theGovernorandtheSecretaryofStatefiledapetitionforreviewofthecourt   ofappealsrulinginDelRiobutdidnotrequestexpeditedconsideration.OnSeptember4,theyalso   filedapetitionforreviewofthecourtofappealsrulingin_Cotera_.OnSeptember5,theyfiledan   emergencymotiontostaythetrialintheTravisCountycases,arguinginpartthattheinterlocutory h`  appealstatuteautomaticallystayedthecommencementoftrial._ `#  37      _ԀOnthesameday,Speaker_Laney_ H@  noticedanappealfromthedenialofhispleatothejurisdictionintheHarrisCountycases,_  `#  38      _Ԁandthe (  nextday,September6,theBentsengroupfiledapetitionformandamusand emergencyrequest  tostaythetrialintheHarrisCountycases.The emergencyrequest,likethe emergencymotion,  wasbasedinpartontheinterlocutoryappealstatute.    OnFriday,September7,westayedthetrialsinbothcounties,requestingthatbothdistrict  courtsremainreadytoproceedonfurtherorderofthisCourt,andscheduledargumentonallpending  mattersforSeptember10at10:00a.m. `#  39       h` @) II  H!@   Centraltoresolvingallthreepetitionsbeforeusarethesethreeissues:first,canacourthave (#  subjectmatterjurisdictionofaclaimthatwasnotripewhenthecasewasfiledbutbecameripewhile %  thecasewaspending?second,doesacasefiledonaclaimthatisnotyetripehavedominant  jurisdictionoveracasefiledonthesameclaimafterithasbecomeripe?andthird,whendidthe  challengestotheexistingcongressionaldistrictsinthefourcasesherebecomeripe?Wediscuss   eachinturn.     Ourdiscussionisfurthercomplicatedbythedifferencesintheviewsofthepartiesaligned  ontheRepublicansideoftheredistrictingclaimsandthepartiesalignedontheDemocraticside. h`  Foreaseofreferenceonly,andwithoutdismissingthedifferencesoneachside,werefertothe H@  Republicangroupgenerallyas petitioners,becausetheyjoinforthemostpartinthearguments (  madebythepetitionersintheinterlocutoryappeals,andwerefertotheDemocraticgroupgenerally  as relators,becausetheyjoinmostlyintheargumentsmadebytherelatorsintheoriginal  mandamusproceeding.  @* A     Noonequestionsthatfederalconstitutionalchallengestotheexistingcongressionaldistricts  inTexasarenowripefordecision,giventhatTexasisentitledtotwoadditionalseatsandnodoubt h` remainsthattheLegislaturewillnotredistrict.Whatthepartiesheredisputeiswhetheracasefiled H!@ whensuchchallengeswerenotripemustbedismissedforwantofjurisdictionafterithasbecome (#  ripe. %    Ripenessisoneofseveralcategoriesof_justiciability_. `#  40      ׀Athresholdquestioniswhether &" federalorstatelawdeterminestheripenessoffederalconstitutionalclaimslikethosemadeinthe (!$ fourpendingcases.Indeterminingstanding,another_justiciability_Ԁissue, `#  41      ׀theUnitedStatesSupreme  Courthassaidthat statecourtsarenotboundtoadheretofederalstandingrequirements._X `#  42      _ԀWith  federalconstitutionalrightsatissue,wehavesometimessoughtguidanceonripenessissuesinmore   extensivelydevelopedfederaljurisprudence,_x `#  43      _Ԁbutwehavedonethesamewithstandingissues   withoutcedingtheauthorityofstatelaw._ `#  44      _ԀWeareinclinedtothinkthatripeness,likestandingand  other_justiciability_Ԁissues,shouldbedeterminedbystatelaw,aslongasapplyingstatelawdoesnot h`  defeatwhatProfessorWrighthascalled theuncertainlydefinedobligationofstatecourtstoprovide H@  aremedyforfederalwrongs,_`  `#  45      _Ԁbutasitapplieshereatleast,weseenodifferencebetweenourlaw (  andfederallaw.    TheSupremeCourthascharacterizedripenessas peculiarlyaquestionoftiming.H  `#  46      ׀  Summarizingfederalcaselaw,ProfessorWrighthasexplained: Ripenessdoctrineisinvokedto  determinewhetheradisputehasyetmaturedtoapointthatwarrantsdecision.Thecentralconcern  iswhetherthecaseinvolvesuncertainorcontingentfutureeventsthatmaynotoccurasanticipated,  orindeedmaynotoccuratall. `#  47      ׀Ripenessconcernsnotonlywhetheracourtcanact"whether  ithasjurisdiction"butprudentially,whetheritshould._  `#  48      _ԀInassessingripeness,theSupremeCourt   hassaid,acourtisrequired toevaluateboththefitnessoftheissuesforjudicialdecisionandthe   hardshiptothepartiesofwithholdingcourtconsideration.@ `#  49      ׀TheSupremeCourthasindicatedthat  ripenessshouldbedeterminedatthetimeofadjudication. `#  50      ׀AsProfessorWrighthasexplained: h`   Ripenessshouldbedecidedonthebasisofalltheinformationavailabletothecourt.Intervening H@  eventsthatoccurafterdecisioninlowercourtsshouldbeincluded,justasmustbedonewith (  questionsof_mootness_._  `#  51      _ԀPetitionersarguethatfederallawpermitstheconsiderationofpostfiling  circumstancesonlyindeterminingprudentialripeness,notindeterminingtheripenessrequiredfor  jurisdiction,butwecannotfindthatdistinctioninthecases.NeitherdidtheUnitedStatesDistrict  CourtfortheEasternDistrictofTexasinrejectingtheargumentinthreeofthependingfederal  congressionalredistrictingcases thatsubsequenteventscannotripenadisputeifthedisputewas  unripewhenthecasewasfiled._ `#  52      _    Theseprinciplesoffederallawareconsistentwithourownripenessjurisprudence.In   Pattersonv.PlannedParenthood,westatedthat theripenessdoctrineservestoavoidpremature   adjudication. `#  53      ׀QuotingProfessorWright,westatedthat [_r]ipeness_Ԁthusfocusesonwhetherthe  caseinvolvesuncertainorcontingentfutureeventsthatmaynotoccurasanticipated,orindeedmay h`  notoccuratall.x `#  54      ׀Ripeness,wesaid,involvesbothjurisdictionalandprudentialconcerns. `#  55      ׀We H@  didnotsuggestinPattersonthattheripenessrequiredforjurisdictionmustbedeterminedonlyas (  ofthedateacaseisfiled;onthecontrary,weconsideredevidenceofcircumstancesafterthatdate.  Theissuewaswhetherastateappropriationriderconflictedwithfederalregulations.Testimonyat  trialreflectedthatneitherthestateagencywithresponsibilityforthefundsnorthefederalagency  withresponsibilityfortheregulationshadyetdeterminedwhatactionsitwouldtake. `#  56      ׀Thetrial   courtheldthattheriderwasunconstitutional.  `#  57      ׀Ondirectappeal,theplaintiffdidnotarguethat  circumstanceshadchanged.Wereversed,concludingthat [_b]ecause_Ԁitsallegedinjuryremains  contingent,[theplaintiffs]claimisnotyetripeforreview. `#  58           PetitionerspointtoourstatementinWacoIndependentSchoolDistrictv.GibsonX `#  59      ׀that    [_u]nder_Ԁtheripenessdoctrine,weconsiderwhether,atthetimealawsuitisfiled,thefactsare   sufficientlydevelopedsothataninjuryhasoccurredorislikelytooccur,ratherthanbeing  contingentorremote. `#  60      ׀Butthatstatementmustbetakeninthecontextofthatcase,wheretheonly h`  issueraisedwasripenessatthetimethecasewasfiled.TheplaintiffsinGibsonsuedtoenjoina H@  schooldistrictfromimplementing astudent-promotionpolicyrequiringstudentsinfirstthrough (  eighthgradestoobtainasatisfactoryscoreononeoftwostandardizedassessmentteststoadvance  tothenextgrade.x `#  61      ׀Thetrialcourtdismissedtheseclaimsonthepleadingsbecauseoftheplaintiffs  failuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies,butthecourtofappealsreversed. `#  62      ׀Weheldthatthe  schooldistrictcouldchallengeonappealforthefirsttimethelackofripenessoftheplaintiffs  claims,andthatthoseclaims,aspleaded,werenotripe.Becauseoftheproceduralpostureofthe  case,ourdecisionwasnecessarilybasedontheplaintiffspleadings.Wedidnotsaythatthetime h`  offilingwastheonlyperiodeverrelevanttoripeness. H!@   PattersonandGibsonbothsupportthepropositionthatacasewhichisnotripewhenfiled   maybedismissed,especiallyifthelikelihoodthatitwillsoonbecomeripecannotbedemonstrated.  ThedistrictcourtcouldproperlyhavedismissedDelRioforlackofripenesswhiletheLegislature   wasstillconsideringredistrictingduringtheregularsession,justastheUnitedStatesDistrictCourts   fortheEasternandWesternDistrictsofTexasdismissedthefirstthreecongressionalredistricting  casesforlackofripeness._ `#  63      _ԀButjustasacasemaybecomemootafteritisfiled,itmayalsoripen. h`  AftertheclaimsinDelRioripened,thedistrictcourtwasnotrequiredtodismissthecasesimply H@  becauseitwasfiledprematurely.Themischiefofacontraryruleisreadilyapparent:apartycould (  delayraisingtheissue,evenuntilappeal,andstillinsistupondismissalforwantofjurisdictionat  thetimethecasewasfiled,eventhoughtheissueshadlongsincematuredandbeenfullylitigated.    Underfederallaw,ProfessorWrightconcludes:  <  8  Ripenesscaseshavegeneratedafunctionalapproachthatdirectlyweighsthe  importanceoftheinterestadvanced;theextentoftheinjuryorrisk;thedifficultyof  decidingthesubstantiveissuesandthealliedneedforspecificfactualillumination;  andthesensitivityoftheissuesinrelationtofuturecases,thestates,andother xp branchesofthefederalgovernment.< red   `#  64      h`   TheripenessdoctrineisnolessfunctionalunderTexaslaw. H!@   Accordingly,weholdthataclaimslackofripenesswhenfiledisnotajurisdictional (#  infirmityrequiringdismissalifthecasehasmatured. %  @* B     ThechallengestotheStatescongressionaldistrictsinallfourcasessetfortrialarenowripe,  asallpartiesagree.Adjudicationneednot,indeedmustnot,bedelayedfurther.Thepartiesdispute   whetherDelRio,ART,and_Cotera_wereripewhenfiled,butrelatorsarguethatevenifDelRiowas   filedbeforetheissuesripened,itshouldbetriedfirstbecauseitwasfiledfirst.Wedisagree.    Itisnotunusualforpartieswithachoiceofforumstopreferoneoveranother,andwhen h`  morethanonepartycansueonthesamesubjectmatter,theymaychoosedifferencecourts.Asa H@  rule,whencasesinvolvingthesamesubjectmatterarebroughtindifferentcourts,thecourtwiththe (  firstfiledcasehasdominantjurisdictionandshouldproceed,andtheothercasesshouldabate._ `#  65      _ԀThe  obviousreasonsforabatement,asweexplainedinWyattv.ShawPlumbingCo.,aretheconservation  ofjudicialresources,  `#  66      ׀avoidanceofdelay, `#  67      ׀ comity,convenience,andthenecessityforanorderly  procedureinthetrialofcontestedissues@ `#  68      ׀"orasweputitinClevelandv.Ward,to preventraces  fromcourttocourtbyvigilantcounsel._ `#  69      _ԀThefirstfiledrulealsohasseveraljustifications.The  jurisprudentialreasonfortheruleisthatonceamatterisbeforeacourtofcompetentjurisdiction, h`  itsactionmustnecessarilybeexclusivebecauseitis impossiblethattwocourtscan,atthesame H!@ time,possessthepowertomakeafinaldeterminationofthesamecontroversybetweenthesame  parties. `#  70      ׀Apragmaticjustificationforthefirstfiledruleisefficiency:proceedingsearlierbegun  maybeexpectedtobeearlierconcluded.Afurtherjustificationissimplefairness:inaracetothe   courthouse,thewinnerssuitshouldhavedominantjurisdiction.Thefirstfiledruleadmitsof   exceptionswhenitsjustificationsfail,aswhenthefirstcourtdoesnothavethefullmatterbeforeit,  orwhenconferringdominantjurisdictiononthefirstcourtwilldelayorevenpreventapromptand h`  fulladjudication,orwhentheracetothecourthousewasunfairlyrun.Thus,inWyattwestatedthat H@  thefirstfiledrulewouldnotapplyifapartysconduct_estops_Ԁhimfromassertingdominant (  jurisdiction,ifjoinderofpartiesisinfeasibleorimpossible,oriftheplaintiffinthefirstcaseisnot  intentonprosecutinghisclaims.Apartywhofilessuitonmanifestlyunripeclaims,merelytowin  aracetothecourthouse,fallswithinthefirstexception.Havingfiledclaimsthatclearlycannotbe  prosecuted,heshouldbe_estopped_Ԁfromarguingdominantjurisdiction.Indeed,aswehavejust  explained,suchacasemightwellbedismissed.Toapplytheruleinthatcasewouldencouragethe  intentionalfilingofunripeclaims,wastingthecourtsandpartiesresources.Butevenifaplaintiff h` suesonunripeclaimsingoodfaith,intendingtoprosecutethem,wethinkthefirstfiledruleshould H!@ notapply.Conferringdominantjurisdictiononacourtwithsuchacasedoesnothingtopromotea (#  promptadjudicationbecause_unmatured_Ԁclaimscannotbeprosecutedregardlessoftheplaintiffs %  intent.Andapartywhojumpstheguncanhardlyarguethatheshouldwintheracebecausehe &" meantwell.Bythesametoken,however,weseenoreasontoprohibitapartywhofilesaripeclaim, (!$ eitherinanewsuitorbyamendedpleadinginanexistingsuit,fromproceedingfirstsimplybecause  heearlierfiledthesameclaimbeforeitwasripe.Insuchcircumstancestheamendedpleading  shouldbetreatedforpurposesofdeterminingdominantjurisdictionasanewsuitasofthetimeit   isfiled,butnotrelatingbacktothecommencementoftheaction. `#  71           Consistentwiththejustificationsforthefirstfiledrule,weholdthatdominantjurisdiction  cannotbeconferredonacourtbythefilingofaclaim,eitherbyanoriginaloramendedpleading, h`  unlesstheclaimwasripewhenthefilingwasmade. H@  @* C  (    Fromwhatwehaveconcludedthusfar,thecourtwiththefirstcasethatwasripewhenfiled  hasdominantjurisdictionandshouldproceedimmediatelytotrial,andtheothercasesshouldbe  abated.Wemustnowdeterminewhichcasethatis.Aswehavesaidalready, [_r]ipeness_Ԁ...focuses  onwhetherthecaseinvolvesuncertainorcontingentfutureeventsthatmaynotoccurasanticipated,  orindeedmaynotoccuratall,  `#  72      ׀andrequiresthatwe evaluateboththefitnessoftheissuesfor  judicialdecisionandthehardshiptothepartiesofwithholdingcourtconsideration. `#  73      ׀ h`   Theclaimsmadeinthefourcasessetfortrialthatcongressionaldistrictsmustbejudicially H!@ redrawnhavetwobasicpredicates.Onerelatestothestructureofthedistricts.Theclaimantsallege (#  thatexistingdistrictsaretoofew,thatTexasshouldhavetwomorethanthethirtynowinplace.The %  claimantsalsoallegethatthepopulationofthedistrictsvariesmorethantheUnitedStates  Constitutionpermits.Evenassumingthateitherallegationcouldbeprovedwithoutthedecennial  census,thepolicyofArticleI,Section2oftheConstitutionisthatthedeterminationbebasedonthe   census.AstheSupremeCourtstatedinReynoldsv.Sims:   <  8  Limitationsonthefrequencyofreapportionmentarejustifiedbytheneedforstability  andcontinuityintheorganizationofthelegislativesystem,althoughundoubtedly xp  reapportioningnomorefrequentlythanevery10yearsleadstosomeimbalancein h`  thepopulationofdistrictstowardtheendofthedecennialperiodandalsotothe XP  developmentofresistancetochangeonthepartofsomeincumbentlegislators.<ART   `#  74      H@    Thus,whetherexistingdistrictsareimproperlystructureddependsonthe2000censusdata. (  PreliminarydatashowingthatTexasisentitledtotwoadditionalseatswasnotreleaseduntil  December28,2000,andwhilemanypredictedthat_that_Ԁwouldbetheresult,astheTexasLegislative  Councildidearlyin2000,itcouldnotbeestablishedwithoutofficialcensusdata.Moredetailed  censusdatanecessarytodrawdistrictswithroughlyequalpopulationswerenotreleaseduntilMarch  12,2001.Thus,theDelRiocasewasnotripewhenitwasfiledonDecember27,2000,becausethe  informationnecessarytoprovetheclaimsassertedandobtainaremedydidnotexistatthattime. h` AnyattempttoredrawcongressionaldistrictspriortoMarch12,2001,couldonlyhavebeenbased H!@ onpurespeculation.Wenotethatthefederalcourtsdismissedallthreeoftheircasesfiledbefore (#   thatdate.X `#  75       %    Thesecondbasicpredicateoftheclaimsforjudicialreliefisthatlegislativereliefisnot   forthcoming.Redistricting,aswehavenotedabove, isprimarilyamatterforlegislative  considerationanddetermination. `#  76      ׀Mostoftenitisahighlychargedpoliticalenterpriseintowhich   courtsmustnotintrudeexceptasalastresort.Determiningwhenthatdayhasarrivedisfraughtwith   uncertainty,asthecasesbeforeusillustrate.TheplaintiffsinDelRioallegednearlytwoweeks  beforetheLegislaturesregularsessionopenedthattherewas reasontobelievethatitwould h`  deadlockonredistrictingissues.Thatmayhavebeenareasonablepredictionatthetimedespitethe H@  factthattheLegislaturedidnotdeadlockoncongressionalredistrictingin1971,1981,or1991.On (  May8,theplaintiffsinDelRioamendedtheirpetitiontoallegethatlegislativeinactionwas anear  certaintybecauseofimpendingdeadlinessetbySenateandHouserules.Yetthatsamedaythe  federalcourtinitsfirstARTcaseconcludedthattherewas nothreatthattheLegislaturewouldfail  toactbeforethenextelectioncycleanddismissedthecaseforlackofripeness.|X `#  77      ׀Indeed,both  housescontinuedtosuspendselfimposeddeadlines.Forexample,onMay11theHousesuspended  notonlyitsownrulesbuttherequirementoftheTexasConstitutionthatbillsbereadonthree h` differentdaysbeforepassage, `#  78      ׀allowingalargenumberofbillstopass._ `#  79      _ԀThatsamedaytheSenate, H!@ too,suspendeditsrulestoallowtheintroductionofanewbill. `#  80      ׀Actionwithintheregularsession  wascertainlyfarlesslikelyonMay24whenARTwasfiled,althoughitremainedapossibilityifa  plancouldbeagreedon.EvenonMay26,twodaysbeforetheregularsessionwastoadjourn,the   Governorwouldsayonlythat aspecialsessionmaybenecessary.Atleastasfaraslegislative   ruleswereconcerned,passagewasstillpossible.OnMay27,theHousesuspendedallitsrulesto  takeupeighteenconferencecommitteereportsfiledafterthestateddeadline._X `#  81      _ԀWhen_Cotera_was h`  filedonMay31,threedaysaftertheregularsessionadjourned,therewassomereasontothinkthat H@  aredistrictingplanmightbeadoptedinaspeciallegislativesession,aswasdonein1991,1981,and (  1971.    Whiletheripenessofaclaimforjudicialredistrictingrequiresashowingoflegislative  inaction,thedifficultieswithsuchashowingareformidable.First,noonecanspeakwithauthority  aboutwhattheLegislaturewillandwillnotdo.Thatbodycanspeakonlythroughavoteofits  members,whomaythemselveschangepositions.Second,predictionsabouttheprobablecourseof  thelegislativeprocessarenotoriouslyunreliable,asanyoneremotelyfamiliarwiththeprocesswell h` knows.Third,courtsshouldnotencouragepartiestopredict,muchlessprovetheimprobabilityof, H!@ legislativeinactionontheimportantmatterofredistricting.Everyencouragement,atleastfromthe (#  judiciary,shouldbetowardadoptionofalegislativesolution.Fourth,partiesshouldnotbe %  encouragedtoenlistparticipantsinthelegislativeprocesstoshowthatclaimsareripeornotripe. &" Nopersoninvolvedinthelegislativeprocessshouldbeencouragedtotakeordeferactioninorder  togiveanappearancethatacaseisorisnotripe.Wedonotsuggestthatanyoftheseproblemshave  arisenwiththependingcases;welistthemonlyaspotentialdifficultiesinprovinglegislative   inaction.Finally,courts"federalandstate"cannotdefersolonginhopesoflegislativeaction   thattheelectionprocessisdisrupted.    Theonly hardandfastdeadlineinthechronologyofeventswastheonesetbytheTexas h`  Constitution:thattheLegislatureadjournsinedienotmorethan140daysafteritsregularsession H@  commenced. `#  82      ׀EnactmentoflegislationremainedwithintheLegislaturespoweruntilhoursbefore (  adjournment,andthusinactionremaineduncertainandcontingentuntiltheendofthesession.  RedistrictingissueswerenotfitforjudicialdeterminationuntiltheLegislaturehaditsfullregular  sessiontodischargeitsredistrictingresponsibility.Oncetheregularsessionadjourned,areasonable  opportunityremainedforfullylitigatingredistrictingissues.Todelayjudicialproceedingsfurther  incaseaspecialsessionmightbecalledwouldhaveincreasedthethreatofdisruptiontotheelection  cycle.Insum,applyingsettledrulesofripeness,weconcludethattheconstitutionalchallengesto h` congressional_districting_Ԁbecameripeattheendoftheregularsession,butnotbefore. H!@   Petitionersarguethatathirdfactorshouldalsobeconsideredindeterminingripenessinthis (#  context"theimminenceofdisruptiontotheelectioncycle.Weagreethatthisisarelevant %  concern,althoughitiscertainlynoeasiertoassessthantheprospectoflegislativeinaction. &" AccordingtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,onceastatelegislaturehashadachancetoresolve (!$ redistrictingissues,statecourtsmusthaveareasonableopportunitytoresolvedisputes,followedby  federalcourts. `#  83      ׀InTexas,anystatesolutionrequires_preclearance_ԀbytheUnitedStatesDepartment  ofJusticeundertheVotingRightsAct,X `#  84      ׀aprocessthatoftentakesmonths.Thefilingperiodfor   candidatesbeginsinearlyDecember,  `#  85      ׀andthepartyprimariesareinMarch. x `#  86      ׀Ideally,state   litigationshouldthereforebecompletedwellbeforeOctober,buthowmuchearlieritshould  commenceinordertomeetthatdeadlineisuncertain.Thependingcasesillustratethattheriskof h`  disruptiontotheelectioncycleincreasesdramaticallyifcommencementofactivelitigationis H@  delayedaftertheconclusionoftheLegislaturesregularsession. (    Forthefuture,wethinkthatthedifficultiesindeterminingtheripenessofsuchchallenges  arebestresolvedbyabrightlinerule"asettimeafterwhichjudicialproceedingsmaybe  commencedandactivelyprosecuted,eveniflegislativeactionremainsapossibility.Themost  appropriatedeadlineistheadjournmentoftheLegislaturesregularsession.Eventhoughitisquite  possiblethattheLegislaturewilladoptaredistrictingplanafterwardinspecialsession,asithas  oftendonebefore,toprecludecommencementofjudicialproceedingsanylongerandstillallowfor h` atrial,appeals,_preclearance_ԀundertheVotingRightsAct, `#  87      ׀andfederalcourtproceedings,presents H!@ anunjustifiableriskofdisruptiontotheelectioncycle.Itmaybethatinotherstatesabrightline (#  rulewouldhavelesstocommendit,_ `#  88      _ԀbutinTexas,withregularlegislativesessionsbeingrelatively  short,specialsessionsbeingsubjecttothewilloftheGovernor,theabsenceoflegislatedprocedures  tostreamlinejudicialproceedingstopreventproblemssuchasthosenowbeforeus,andthe   limitationsonthisCourtsreviewoffactualdisputeslikethoseinvariablyraisedinaweighingof   circumstances,abrightlineruleofripenessbasedonsinedieadjournmentoftheregularlegislative  sessionappearstobestresolvetheattendantproblems.Ofcourse,shouldtheLegislatureadopta h`  redistrictingplaninspecialsession,thecourtsshoulddefertothatplanifitislegal.Butotherwise H@  thecourtactionshouldproceedtotrialandappealsothatafinaldecisioncanbemadeinthestate (  systemintimeforanyreviewinthefederalcourtsandundertheVotingRightsAct.    Forthiscase,however,applyingsettledripenesslaw,weholdthattheconstitutional  challengestocongressionaldistrictsmadeinthecasesawaitingtrialwerenotripeuntiltheregular  sessionoftheLegislatureafterthedecennialcensusadjourned.Thefirstcasefiledafterthatdate  was_Cotera_,andanamendedpetitioninDelRiowasfiledthesameday.ThedistrictcourtinTravis  Countythereforehasdominantjurisdiction. h` @ww) III  H!@   Itremainsforustodeterminewhatreliefshouldbegrantedinthethreemattersbeforeus. (#  PetitionersinNo.01-0728requestthatwereversethecourtofappealsinDelRioanddismissthat %  caseforwantofjurisdiction.Thatrequestismootedbyourconclusionthatthetrialcourthas &" jurisdictioninDelRio,andaccordinglywedismissthepetitionforreview.PetitionersinNo. (!$ 01-0810requestthatwereversethecourtofappealssdismissaloftheappealrelatedto_Cotera_and  remandthecasetothatcourtforconsiderationofpetitionersargumentsthatthetrialcourtlacks  jurisdiction.Thatrequest,too,ismootedbyouranalysisabove,andwelikewisedismissthat   petitionforreview.Thepartieshavequestionedwhethertrialisstayedbysection51.014(b)ofthe   TexasCivilPractice&RemediesCodebecauseofthependencyofinterlocutoryappealsinthis  CourtandintheFirstCourtofAppealsinHouston.Becausetodaysdecisionmootstheissuesin h`  allsuchappeals,thestatutoryissueisremoved. H@    RelatorsrequestthatwegrantmandamusreliefdirectingthetrialcourtinHarrisCountyto (  abateproceedingsinARTand_Rivas_,thetwocasespendingthere.Petitionersarguethatrelators  petitionformandamus,like_Weddington_sfiledJuly24,shouldbedeniedbecauseitwasnotfirst  presentedtothecourtofappeals.  `#  89      ׀Butwearemorethansevenweeksclosertothefederalcourts  October1deadlineforstatecourtactionthanwewerewhen_Weddington_spetitionwasfiled.Time  hassimplyrunout.Underthesecircumstances,wemustconsiderrelatorspetitioninthefirst  instance._X `#  90      _ h`   Toobtainrelief,relatorsmustshowthatthetrialcourtclearlyabuseditsdiscretionandthat H!@ theyhavenoadequateremedybyappeal. `#  91      ׀Ourdeterminationthatthe_Cotera_courthasdominant (#  jurisdictionisbasedonsettledprinciples,eventhoughtheirproperapplicationmaynothavebeen %  clear.Aswehaveexplained,thecircumstancesonwhichtheclaimsthathavebeenassertedare  predicatedwerenotsufficientlydevelopeduntiltheregularsessionoftheLegislatureadjourned,but  theydidnotremaincontingentuntiltheGovernorsfinalannouncementthathewouldnotconvene   aspecialsession.Underthelaw,ARTand_Rivas_mustbeabated,andthedistrictcourtsfailureto   followthatlaw,eventhoughitsapplicationwasuncertain,wasaclearabuseofdiscretion.Because   [a]trialcourthasnodiscretionindeterminingwhatthelawisorapplyingthelawtothefacts, `#  92       h`  atrialcourt's erroneouslegalconclusion,eveninanunsettledareaoflaw,isanabuseof H@  discretion._X `#  93      _ (    WestatedinWalkerv.Packerthatanappellateremedyisinadequate,justifyingissuanceof  mandamusrelief, whenpartiesstandtolosetheirsubstantialrights._  `#  94      _ԀInthecurrent  circumstances,furtherconfusionordelayinthetrialofthependingchallengestocongressional  _districting_Ԁposestheveryrealthreatthatthepartieswillnotbeabletoobtainadecisioninthestate  courtsthatisfinalonappealbeforetheOctober1deadlinesetbythefederalcourts.Although  counselassuredusatoralargumentthattheyandthetwodistrictcourtsinvolvedhavecooperated h` inanefforttoconducttwotrialsofthesameissues,wethinktheinefficiencyofsuchanapproach H!@ andtheuncertaintythatwillattendtwoappealsandafinalappealtothisCourtposeanintolerable (#  risktocompletingtheprocesswithinthelimitedtimeremaining.TheSupremeCourthasrecognized %  thattherightofastatescitizenstohavedistrictsdrawnbystateinstitutionsissosubstantialthat  federalcourtsmustreasonablyaccommodatethestateprocessanddefertoastatesolution.%  _ `#  95      _ԀWe  believethatprotectionofthisrightnecessitatestheissuanceofmandamusreliefhere.     Furthermore,in_CSR_ԀLtd.v.Link,werecognizedthatexceptionalcircumstancesmaymake   arightofappealinadequate.(X `#  96      ׀Thecircumstancespresentedhereclearlyfallwithinthatcategory.  Theimportanceofachievingadecisionofthe_districting_Ԁclaimsthatisfinalonappealbythe h`  deadlinesetbythefederalcourtandintimeforreviewundertheVotingRightsAct,allsoasto H@  minimizetheriskofdisruptiontotheimpendingelectioncycle,makestheissuanceofmandamus (  reliefnotonlyappropriatebutimperative.    Finally,inCurtisv.Gibbs,weheldthatmandamusisappropriatetoresolvedisputesover  dominantjurisdiction. `#  97      ׀InAborv.Black,wedeclinedtograntmandamusreliefdirectingacourt  toabateacaseindeferencetoanothercourtsdominantjurisdictionabsent anyorder[oftheformer  court]whichactivelyinterfereswiththeexerciseofjurisdictionbythecourtwithdominant  jurisdiction._x `#  98      _ԀEvenunderthismorerestrictivetest,relatorsdonothaveanadequateremedyby h` appeal.ThedistrictcourtsorderinARTand_Rivas_settingthosecasesfortrialattheverysametime H!@ thatDelRioand_Cotera_aresetfortrialactivelyinterfereswiththedominantjurisdictioninthelatter (#  cases.Werecognize,ofcourse,thattrialwasfirstsetinHarrisCountyonSeptember10,andthat %  thedistrictcourtinTravisCountylateradvancedthetrialsettingtothesamedate,butaswehave  concluded,thecourtinTravisCountyhasdominantjurisdictionandshouldproceedfirst.Itis  unimportanttotheissueofdominantjurisdictionwhichcourtfirstsetanearliertrialdate.     Courtsareerectedtosettlecontroversies,nottomultiplythem._ `#  99      _ԀAccordingly,wegrant   therelatorsrequestthatthedistrictcourtinHarrisCountybedirectedtoabateproceedingsinART  and_Rivas_.Weareconfidentthatthedistrictcourtwillpromptlycomply,andourwritwillissueonly h`  ifitdoesnot. H@  <    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#(#(#K(#(#(#  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#NathanL._Hecht_(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#Justice(#(# <Ltiff  Opiniondelivered:September12,2001