Full opinion text
PER CURIAM: Originally, these cases presented constitutional attacks by the several plaintiffs and intervenors upon parts of the 1981 Legislative Redistricting Board’s redistricting plans for the Texas Senate and House of Representatives. The consolidated cases were tried for six days, January 18 — 23, 1982, before a three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Additional hearings were held on March 1 — 2, 1982. On March 5, 1982, this Court ordered temporary redistricting plans into effect with the express caveat that these temporary plans were only to remain “in effect for all elections through December 31, 1983, unless valid apportionment plans are sooner enacted.” We further held that “[i]n the event that valid plans are not in effect by September 1, 1983, or such earlier date as this Court may hereafter establish, this Court will then proceed to draw permanent court-ordered plans for the apportionment of the Texas legislature.” Faced with the necessity of deciding the case by March 5, 1982, so that the scheduled May 1, 1982 primaries could be held on time, we prepared only a summary opinion to accompany our order, promising a “full opinion.” We now provide that opinion, setting forth the procedural history of these cases, an analysis of the claims presented and the relief requested, our disposition of those claims and the relief granted. I. Procedural History of These Cases A. The Parties and Claims The plaintiffs (“Senate Plaintiffs”) in CA 3-81 — 1946-R brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on October 29, 1981, against William P. Clements, Governor of the State of Texas, Mark White, Attorney General of the State of Texas, David Dean, Secretary of State of the State of Texas, Chester R. Upham, Chairman of the Republican Party of the State of Texas, and Bob Slagle, Chairman of the Democratic Party of the State of Texas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting implementation of the reapportionment plan for electing members of the Senate of the State of Texas adopted on October 27, 1981, by the Legislative Redistricting Board (the “LRB”) of the State of Texas pursuant to Article III, § 28 of the Texas Constitution. The Senate Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the LRB Senate plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment and the fifteenth amendment to the United States Constitution in that it dilutes the voting strength of blacks, hispamos and republicans and ignores communities of interests throughout the State. The Senate Plaintiffs requested appointment of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). The plaintiffs (“House Plaintiffs”) in CA 3-81-2205-R brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 6,1981, against the same persons who were at that time the defendants in the Senate case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting implementation of the reapportionment plan for electing members of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas adopted on October 28, 1981, by the LRB, also pursuant to Article III, § 28 of the Texas Constitution. The House Plaintiffs claimed that the LRB House plan violates the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution in that deviations in the proposed House districts from the ideal one person, one vote district are greater than is permitted under the fourteenth amendment; that the LRB House plan violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in that the proposed House districts invidiously cancel, minimize and dilute the voting strength of racial minorities; and that the LRB House plan violates the first amendment in that it represents an intentional interference by the State of Texas with the first amendment rights of all citizens (specifically, in this case, Texas republicans) to associate politically. The House Plaintiffs also asserted that the LRB House plan impermissibly divides communities of interest and establishes districts that are not compact and contiguous. The House Plaintiffs also requested a three-judge court. The House Plaintiffs subsequently amended their pleadings to join as additional defendants William P. Hobby, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Texas, Bill Clayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bob Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Bob Armstrong, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas (such additional defendants, together with the original defendants in the Senate and House cases, being hereinafter collectively called the “Defendants”); to seek a declaratory judgment that the LRB House plan is required to be submitted to the United States Department of Justice for preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended (the “Voting Rights Act” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, or made the subject of a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; and to seek injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to submit the LRB House plan to the Department of Justice for preclearance or to bring a declaratory judgment action as contemplated by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The amended pleadings also requested a declaratory judgment that the apportionment plan for the House of Representatives in existence prior to the adoption of the LRB House plan is unconstitutional because population changes in the State since 1970 had resulted in unacceptable deviations from the one person, one vote standard. Finally, the House Plaintiffs asked the court to adopt “a legal plan of apportionment” for the Texas House of Representatives. The City of Baytown and Emmett 0. Hutto as Mayor of the City of Baytown (collectively, “Baytown”) brought suit (CA-3-81-2263-R) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 22, 1981, against the original defendants in the other cases seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting implementation of the LRB House plan. Bay-town claimed, inter alia, that the LRB House plan violates the fourteenth amendment in that it impermissibly divides communities and units of interest existing among voting groups in this State, specifically, the City of Baytown, and that such division results from invidious purposeful discrimination; that the LRB plan “packs” certain growth districts which results in gross underrepresentation of the constituents in those areas; and that purposeful intent to discriminate in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment is evidenced by various infirmities appearing in the LRB plan. Baytown also requested appointment of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). All three cases were brought directly under the fourteenth amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202. The Senate and House Plaintiffs also brought their suits pursuant to the fifteenth amendment; the House Plaintiffs’ case was also brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Jurisdiction for all three cases was asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. A three-judge court was designated in the Senate case. The House and Baytown cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and consolidated on December 3,1981 and December 30, 1981, respectively, with the Senate case for trial. On December 16, 1981, R. A. Deison, Jr. and other individuals, all claiming residence in Montgomery County, Texas (collectively, “Montgomery County”), simultaneously moved this Court and the District Court for the Western District of Texas to allow them to intervene in the Senate case and the House case, respectively, alleging that the LRB- House plan violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution in that it dilutes the voting rights of minorities, allows for greater population deviation than is permissible, intentionally seeks to reduce the voting power of republicans and impermissibly divides communities of interest. Montgomery County further alleged that the State had violated the Voting Rights Act in failing to submit the LRB plan for preclearance by the Department of Justice and that the existing plan was unconstitutional because of the extensive population changes that had taken place in Texas since 1970. Montgomery County requested that the action be maintained as a class action, that this Court issue declaratory and injunctive relief and that it adopt a constitutional redistricting plan for Montgomery County. The motion to intervene was granted by this Court on January 4, 1982. On January 6, 1982, this Court also permitted Jesus Rodriguez and other hispanic citizens (the “MALDEF Intervenors” or “MALDEF”) to intervene. The MALDEF Intervenors challenged the Senate districts in Harris and Bexar Counties and District 21 in South Texas and the House districts in Bexar, Dallas, El Paso and Lubbock Counties and District 68 in Southwest Texas, as formulated by the LRB Senate and House plans, respectively, on the grounds that these districts were formed with discriminatory intent in violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The MALDEF Intervenors also claimed that the LRB utilized racial classifications to create districts consisting of a 65% minority population, and that such benign racial classification requires strict scrutiny to assure that such a goal was not applied inconsistently as a subterfuge to discriminate against hispanic voting strength. They asserted further that racial classifications were used in a discriminatory manner and that since there is no compelling state justification, the LRB Senate and House plans are unconstitutional. Finally, the MALDEF Intervenors claimed that the districts listed above, created by the LRB Senate and House plans, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by virtue of their discriminatory impact on hispanic voting strength, and that Section 2 does not require proof of discriminatory intent. Shortly after the Senate case and the House case were filed, Defendants White, Dean and Clements filed motions to dismiss those cases on the ground that, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the LRB Senate and House plans were not effective until precleared by the Department of Justice and that, under United States v. Board of Supervisors of Warren County, 429 U.S. 642, 97 S.Ct. 833, 51 L.Ed.2d 106 (1977), and Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 2003, 44 L.Ed.2d 486 (1975), the issue of the constitutionality of the plans was not justiciable until the plans were precleared. Alternatively, those Defendants requested a stay of proceedings until the plans were precleared. Recognizing that if the Department of Justice precleared the LRB Senate and House plans on a timely basis, there would not be enough time before the February 1, 1982, filing deadline for the May 1, 1982, primaries to try the cases, this Court denied the motions to dismiss or for a stay, reserving the decision until a later date, and set the cases for trial on January 18, 1982. The case was tried before the three-judge panel for six days and decision was deferred pending preclearance by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5. B. Section Five Preclearance; the Department of Justice’s Objections On January 25, 1982, two days after the close of the trial, the Department of Justice issued letters of objection to the LRB Senate and House plans under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the letter relating to each of the LRB plans, the Department concluded that “the state has failed to demonstrate that the plan is [racially and ethnically] nondiscriminatory.” This conclusion is not surprising in view of the unusual, indeed unique, circumstances surrounding the State’s submissions under Section 5.. On November 23,1981, the Attorney General of the State of Texas, as the State’s chief legal officer and as the State officer designated by the LRB, submitted the LRB plans to the Department of Justice for Section 5 preclearance, along with extensive data to support his conclusion that the proposed plans will not lead to a retrogression in the position of racial and language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. The proposed plans clearly reflect minority voting strength as it currently exists and recognizes potential growth. On November 30, 1981, the Secretary of State of the State of Texas, pursuant to a letter of designation signed by the Governor of Texas, also submitted the LRB plans for preclearance. Notably, in his submission letter the Secretary of State said: It has come to my attention that the submitted Plan may not comply with the Voting Rights Act in all respects. There are claims that under the Plan there is a retrogression in opportunities for minority representation. In my opinion several of these claims are meritorious. The Secretary. attached to his submission several allegations of Section 5 violations. The Department of Justice accepted the Secretary of State’s letter as Texas’ official submission, and after reviewing it, found that Texas had not met its statutory burden of proving that the changes in apportionment effected by the LRB plans did not violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although the State of Texas had the right to provide supplemental information to the Department of Justice for the purpose of causing the objections to be withdrawn, the State initially indicated that it did not propose to do that. Further, in the event that any such objection could not be satisfied on the basis of supplemental information and it became necessary to amend the LRB Senate plan or the LRB House plan, as the case may be, to meet that objection, the State was faced with the further obstacle that under Texas law there was no duly constituted body with authority to make any such amendment, at least on a timely basis. The Texas legislature, which is the body with the first responsibility for legislative redistricting, is not in session and will not meet until January 1983. The time in which the LRB can redistrict has expired. Tex.Const. art. Ill, § 28. Consequently, no state body currently exists for redistricting. The net effect of the issuance by the Department of Justice of the letters of objection and the situation prevailing under Texas law was to render the redistricting of the Texas Senate and House by the LRB legally unenforceable (Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 412, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 1832, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977); Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. at 656, 95 S.Ct. at 2003) three months before the May 1 primaries and six days before the February 1 filing deadline for those primaries. C. Temporary Court-Ordered Plans Under the above circumstances, all parties to these cases asked this Court to adopt plans — some asked for permanent plans— for the redistricting of the Texas Senate and House so that the 1982 elections could be held on a timely basis. On January 28, 1982, this Court entered an order reflecting its intention to adopt temporary plans to facilitate the holding of the forthcoming elections. This Court stated that it proposed to start with the LRB Senate and House plans and to make only such modifications to those plans as would be necessary. The opinion of the Supreme Court in McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 147, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 2235, 68 L.Ed.2d 724, 739 (1981), quotes a passage from the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act which seems to suggest that a court, in exigent circumstances, fashions a redistricting plan itself. But it is not possible for a court that is redistricting both houses in a State as large as the State of Texas (with a combined total of 181 districts), and that is without direct access to the computerized information that is essential to the redistricting process, to draw district lines itself in truly exigent circumstances, that is, in a period of a month. This Court had to rely on the parties to fashion alternative plans for this Court’s review. This Court ordered the parties to confer and to attempt to agree on the necessary modifications to the LRB plans and to file all such modifications, agreed or contested, by February 19, 1982. Hearings on the plans were scheduled for March 1, 1982. The filing deadline for the May 1 primaries was extended from February 1 to March 19, 1982, the date which, according to the Secretary of State of the State of Texas, was the last date to which the filing deadline could be extended if the primaries were to be held on time. Finally, this Court asked the Department of Justice to appear as amicus > curiae to assist this Court and the parties in formulating temporary plans. The Department of Justice was also invited to participate because the letters of objection issued by that Department lacked specificity. One letter, that relating to the Texas House, simply contained a list of allegations received by the Department of Justice, many of which were vague, and concluded that on the record then before the Department, the State had not met its burden of disproving those allegations. This Court hoped that participation by the Department of Justice would enable this Court and the parties to clarify the letters of objection. The Department entered its appearance on February 11,1982, and met with the parties informally, but it was not until March 2,1982, by presentation in open court, that the Department finally clarified, to some extent, its letters of objection. In the response to the January 28 order, this Court received a plethora of plans. With a few exceptions, the parties made changes to the LRB plans that reflected the respective political or other objectives of the parties, rather than strictly legal concerns. Most, if not all, of the plans greatly exceeded what was necessary to meet the Department of Justice’s objections and in the process significantly altered the legislative judgment embodied in the LRB plans. This Court, in reviewing the plans, became concerned about the feasibility of holding the primaries on a timely basis under most of the alternative plans submitted and instructed the parties, at a pretrial conference held on February 25, 1982, that each party must present evidence showing that the May 1 primaries could be held on time under the plan submitted by that party. This resulted in a series of last minute modifications to virtually all the submissions for the purpose of conforming the proposed plans to existing precinct lines which, in most instances, have been drawn on the basis of the LRB plans. Those changes, in turn, altered the supporting statistical data. The end result was an enormous quantity of modifications, corrections to modifications and modifications to corrections, all to be evaluated by the parties and by this Court in a period of only a few days. On March 1 — 2, 1982, this Court held a hearing on the proposed alternative plans, and modifications and corrections thereto. All parties who had participated in the January 18-23 hearing were present; pursuant to this Court’s previous Order, the Secretary of State appeared and participated with his own counsel and the Department of Justice appeared, as noted above. On March 4, 1982, only hours prior to the deadline set by this Court for releasing its decision, the Department of Justice withdrew its objections to the House districts in Harris and Lubbock Counties and District 68 in Southwest Texas. In a letter addressed to the Secretary of State, a copy of which was received by this Court on March 5, 1982, the Department of Justice preserved its objections to the LRB House plan for Dallas, Bexar and El Paso Counties and to the LRB Senate plan for Bexer and Harris Counties. Significantly, the letter went on to state: In all other respects we find that the state has satisfied the burden of proof required by Section 5, in its submission of the House and Senate plan. On March 5, 1982, this Court entered its Summary Opinion and Order adopting, as temporary court-ordered plans, the plans submitted by MALDEF on February 19, 1982, for El Paso and Bexar County House of Representatives’ districts and in all other respects the LRB Senate and House plans. This Court’s Summary Opinion and Order was implemented by a further order entered on March 11, 1982, specifically describing each Senate and House district and incorporating into the temporary court-ordered plans all changes in election procedures, including ballot changes, notice requirements, precinct line changes and polling station changes, necessitated by the temporary plans. Also on March 11, 1982, this Court denied the Senate and House Plaintiffs’ objections to a draft of the implementing order which had been submitted by the Defendants, emphasizing “that implicit in [our] Summary Opinion and Order, and hereby made explicit, is [our] opinion that the plans which [we] adopted on March 5, 1982, are racially fair and equitable and meet all the requirements for temporary court ordered plans.” II. Unconstitutionality of Existing Apportionment Plans . In view of the fact that the LRB Senate and House plans became legally unenforceable as a result of the existence of objections to those plans by the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the apportionment plans for the Texas Senate and House in existence prior to the adoption by the LRB of its plans continue as the apportionment scheme in effect in Texas. Graves v. Barnes, 408 F.Supp. 1050, 1052 (W.D.Tex.1976). Reference is made to Part IV of this opinion for a history of the existing apportionment scheme. The Senate Plaintiffs and the House Plaintiffs claim that the existing apportionment schemes for the Texas Senate and House violate the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution in that deviations in the existing Senate and House districts from the ideal one person, one vote Senate and House districts, respectively, are greater than is permitted under the fourteenth amendment by Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), and its progeny. We agree. The population of the State of Texas has increased from 11,196,730 in 1970 to 14,228,-383 in 1980, representing a 27.1% increase. The population growth throughout the State has not been even. Some areas have increased more than others. The end result is wide deviations from the ideal one person, one vote Senate district (458,980) and House district (94,856) computed as a result of the 1980 census. In the Senate, the population per district varies from 354,311 to 808,063 or from 22.80% overrepresented to 76.06% underrepresented. The ratio between the largest and the smallest district is 2.28 to 1. In the House, the population per district varies from 56,290 to 253,530 or from 40.7% overrepresented to 167.3% underrepresented. The ratio between the largest and smallest district is 4.50 to 1. These large variations from substantial equality are too egregious to permit the existing apportionment schemes to be constitutionally sustained. E.g., Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 744, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 2326, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973) (citing Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 87 S.Ct. 569, 17 L.Ed.2d 501 (1967) (1.30-1); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 87 S.Ct. 820, 17 L.Ed.2d 771 (1967) (1.31-1); and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971) (1.33-1), as cases of unacceptable deviations “too great to be justified by any state interest”); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 569, 84 S.Ct. at 1385. These schemes, once fair and equitable, have become archaic and outdated. Id. at 567, 84 S.Ct. at 1384. Population changes such as have occurred in Texas during the period from 1970 to 1980 strongly militate in favor of decennial reapportionment, as the State of Texas recognizes in Article III, § 28 of the Texas Constitution and as the State attempted to do in 1981. The existing apportionment plans are clearly unconstitutional under the one person, one vote standard of Reynolds and its progeny. III. Constitutional Challenges to LRB Plans The Senate Plaintiffs, the House Plaintiffs, Baytown and the MALDEF Intervenors assert a variety of constitutional challenges to the LRB Senate and House plans, as follows: 1. The LRB House plan violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution in that it invidiously cancels, minimizes and dilutes the voting strength of racial minorities. 2. The LRB House plan violates the fourteenth amendment in that the population deviations from the ideal one person, one vote standard are greater than constitutionally permitted. 3. The LRB House plan represents an intentional interference by the State of Texas with the first amendment right of all citizens to associate politically. 4. The LRB Senate plan violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution in that it dilutes the voting strength of blacks, hispanics and republicans. 5. The LRB Senate plan violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in that it capriciously ignores communities of interest throughout the State of Texas. 6. The LRB Senate plan violates the U.S. Constitution because it fails to contain all contiguous districts. 7. Article III, Section 25 of the Texas Constitution, which requires reapportionment be done on the basis of qualified electors, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. 8. The LRB House plan intentionally and impermissibly divides the City of Baytown, a recognizable community of interest, thereby diluting the voting strength of citizens of the community. In a redistricting controversy in which the state legislative action being scrutinized by a three-judge panel is not subject to the Voting Rights Act, the role of the district court is to adjudicate the merits of claimed constitutional errors and to determine appropriate remedies for any errors found. E.g., White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973). However, when a state is subject to the Voting Rights Act, the usual disposition of claims and determination of remedies may be inapposite. In the case before us, the requirement of Texas’ submission of its LRB plans for Section 5 preclearance and the resulting Department of Justice’s letters of objection have injected an additional consideration into our determination of what claims we may consider and what, if any, remedies are to be ordered to prevent frustration of the Texas election system. It would appear that this Court is presently foreclosed from ruling whether the claims of constitutional error in the LRB plans have any validity. Neither . . . until clearance has been obtained [for a new reapportionment plan enacted by a state] should a court address the constitutionality of the new measure. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. at 146, 101 S.Ct. at 2234, 68 L.Ed.2d at 737, quoting Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 542, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 2498, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978) (citations omitted). Accord, Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 412, 97 S.Ct. at 1832 (reiterating that district court errs in considering constitutional validity of legislative act which had not been precleared); United States v. Board of Supervisors, 429 U.S. at 646—47, 97 S.Ct. at 835 (district court erred in determining unconstitutionality of legislative act which should have been submitted to Department of Justice for clearance); Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. at 656, 95 S.Ct. at 2003 (district court erred in determining questions of constitutionality of legislative act which had not been precleared under Section 5 and was not “effective as law”). See also, S.Rep.No. 94-295, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1975), reprinted in [1975] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 774, 784 (district court should adjudicate constitutional issues only after Section 5 review). The stated basis for the inability of this Court to adjudicate claims of unconstitutionality of the LRB plans is that those plans, having received no Section 5 preclearance, are not “effective as law.” McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. at 146, 101 S.Ct. at 2234, 68 L.Ed.2d at 737; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 412, 97 S.Ct. 1832; Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. at 656, 95 S.Ct. at 2003. The L RB plans, not effective as law, are simply not before this Court for adjudication of questions of constitutionality- Thus, we are faced with circumstances seldom before analyzed by a three-judge court, i.e., constitutional claims by plaintiffs and intervenors which cannot be adjudicated due to the Department of Justice’s objections to the LRB plans, coupled with an immediate need for this Court to order some type of principled temporary plan to prevent the frustration of the State’s electoral system. Our task is to devise a remedy but without having adjudicated a violation on which to predicate that remedy. It is in that context in which we turn to the issues before us: what principles should be followed in implementing a temporary plan, what plan or plans may and can be implemented in order for the elections to take place, and what value judgments should be made concerning the plans we order into effect. We address these issues in light of the general principles applicable to temporary court-ordered plans. IV. Principles Applicable to Temporary Court-Ordered Plans A. Necessity for Timely Elections This Court strongly believes and so finds from the evidence presented that it is important to the people of this State that the May 1 primaries be held and that they be held on time. We understood that all parties and the Department of Justice, as amicus curiae, agreed. If the May 1 primaries are not held, there will continue in office Senators and Representatives elected from many districts that, as a result of the population increase in this State during the past ten years, have become severely malapportioned under the one person, one vote principles of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, and its progeny. If the primaries are postponed to a date different from May 1, when elections are scheduled to be held, the resulting low voter turnout will have a materially adverse impact on minorities and others (such as those running against incumbents) who are depending on a high voter turnout for success at the polls. Finally, testimony at trial indicates that it will cost at least $7,000,000 to hold the May 1 primaries and run-offs, and a decision to hold the primaries for the Texas Senate and House on a different date from the other elections would result in substantial additional expense. This necessity for timely elections requires us to draw temporary plans. B. Temporary Versus Permanent Court-Ordered Plans This Court’s decisions to adopt temporary plans and, in so doing, to begin with the LRB plans are based on several considerations, some legal and some practical. We recognize that legislative reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State legislature or other body, rather than that of a federal court. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 587, 84 S.Ct. at 1394; Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 766, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). Reapportionment is a legislative task which the federal courts should make every effort not to preempt. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. at 539, 98 S.Ct. at 2496; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 414-15, 97 S.Ct. at 1833-34. The Supreme Court has emphasized that when a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, it is appropriate to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. at 540, 98 S.Ct. at 2497; Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 85, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 1293, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966). Judicial relief in the form of a permanent court-ordered plan becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an opportunity to do so. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. at 540, 98 S.Ct. at 2497; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 415, 97 S.Ct. at 1834; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 586, 84 S.Ct. at 1394. Applying the same principles, the legislature should be given an opportunity to respond when the Department of Justice interposes an objection under Section 5, and the Texas legislature has not had that opportunity. The record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that the State is, or would be in the future, unresponsive to Voting Rights Act objections if a mechanism were in existence under State law to enable the State to respond on a timely basis. These considerations argue strongly in favor of adopting temporary plans to facilitate the holding of the 1982 elections and giving the new legislature an opportunity to address the Voting Rights Act problems, if any, whether in the context of plans similar to the LRB plans or otherwise. C. Adherence to Legislative Plans This Court also recognizes that a district court errs if it brushes aside state apportionment policy without solid constitutional or equitable grounds for doing so. White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 796, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 2355, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. at 161, 91 S.Ct. at 1878 (1971). In choosing among plans for implementation, a court should select the plan most nearly adhering to the district configurations in the State’s enactment to the extent that such adherence does not detract from constitutional requirements. [A] federal district court, in the context of legislative reapportionment, should follow the policies and preferences of the State, as expressed in statutory and constitutional provisions or in the reapportionment plans proposed by the state legislature, whenever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution[.] . . . White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 795, 93 S.Ct. at 2354. When fashioning a temporary plan, a district court should not preempt the legislative task nor “intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.” Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. at 160, 91 S.Ct. at 1877. These considerations militate strongly in favor of fashioning temporary plans which have, as their core, the LRB plans, to the maximum extent possible. Our review of the record as it reflects the development of the LRB plans clearly demonstrates that those plans, which were derived from the plans adopted by the legislature, are the result of a legislative process which we should recognize as an expression of legitimate legislative activity. 1. Genesis of the LRB Plans In view of the fact that the Senate and House Plaintiffs challenge the appropriateness of deference to the LRB plans as the product of legislative activity, we think it useful to set forth the genesis of those plans in some detail. We begin by noting that it is not’possible to understand the effort which went into the development of the 1981 redistricting plans by the Texas legislature, which, in turn, is reflected in the LRB plans, without understanding the fate which befell the predecessors of the 1981 effort. In 1951, for the first time in twenty-nine years, the Texas legislature reapportioned the Senate and the House of Representatives. In 1961, and again in 1971, legislative apportionment bills were passed in the first regular session following the decennial census — but the State spent most of the decade of the 1960’s and almost all of the decade of the 1970’s in prolonged and costly litigation concerning the validity of its Senate and Representative districts and its congressional districts. a. Political Thicket I: The 1960’s Soon after the 1962 Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), suits attacking the 1961 State legislative and congressional redistricting plans were filed in federal district courts in Texas. In 1963, the congressional redistricting plan, which had been enacted in 1957, was held unconstitutional. Bush v. Martin (Bush I), 224 F.Supp. 499, 509 (S.D.Tex. 1963), aff’d per curiam, 376 U.S. 222, 84 S.Ct. 709, 11 L.Ed.2d 656 (1964). However, in view of the exigencies of time, the district court permitted the 1964 congressional elections to be conducted under the unconstitutional 1957 legislation. Bush v. Martin (Bush II), 251 F.Supp. 484, 490 (S.D.Tex. 1966). Then, in 1965, the same district court held that the 1961 State Senate and House districts were unconstitutional. Kilgarlin v. Martin, 252 F.Supp. 404, 456 (S.D. Tex.1966). The State did not appeal. With the 1961 redistricting plans completely invalidated, the legislature created new legislative and congressional districts in 1965. The congressional districts, promptly attacked upon complaints that they contained excessive population deviations and discriminated against cities, the Gulf Coast and the republican party, were upheld as a “substantial good faith effort [by Texas] toward the constitutional goal of population equality.” Bush II at 484. The House redistricting plan (but not the Senate plan) was also attacked in district court, and in February of 1966, the court held that part of the plan (providing for flotorial districts) was unconstitutional. Kilgarlin v. Martin, supra. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the entire plan was unconstitutional because of population deviations — although the Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying the claims of racial and political dilution and gerrymandering. Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. 120, 87 S.Ct. 820, 17 L.Ed.2d 771 (1967). Because the district court allowed the legislature until 1967 to correct the House districts, the 1966 elections were conducted under the unconstitutional 1965 redistricting plan. New House districts were drawn by the legislature in 1967 and were amended in 1969 to eliminate the more egregious population disparities. b. Political Thicket II: The 1970’s In its first regular session after the 1970 census, the legislature drew new districts for the House of Representatives, but did not pass redistricting plans for the State Senate or the Texas congressional districts. A special session resulted in a congressional redistricting bill. The LRB was required to redistrict the State Senate, and subsequently, the House of Representatives, after State courts held that the House redistricting plan was invalid under the Texas Constitution because it violated the requirement for preserving counties intact. Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.1971). One day after the LRB completed its tasks, the first of four suits attacking both the Senate and House redistricting plans were filed. After the cases were consolidated for trial, the Senate redistricting plan was upheld by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Graves v. Barnes (Graves I); 343 F.Supp. 704 (W.D.Tex. 1972), aff’d sub nom, Archer v. Smith, 409 U.S. 808, 93 S.Ct. 62, 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972). In 1972, the House redistricting plan was held unconstitutional because of excessive population deviation and because black and hispanic voting strength was diluted by certain multi-member districts. In White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed in part and held that the 9.9% maximum population deviation of the representative districts was not unconstitutional. The district court’s findings invalidating multi-member districts were affirmed, id., and the multi-member districts were involved in subsequent litigation until, in 1975, the Texas legislature provided for single-member districts for all 150 seats. By this time, Texas was subject to the Voting Rights Act, and the Department of Justice objected to several of the new single-member districts. These objections were resolved after still more litigation, Graves v. Barnes (Graves II), 378 F.Supp. 640 (W.D. Tex.1974), aff’d sub nom, Briscoe v. Escalante, 435 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 1444, 55 L.Ed.2d 492 (1978). By the spring of 1978, the House districts were established. The congressional districts were held unconstitutional in 1972 because of excessive population deviation, and the district court adopted one of several alternative plans offered by the parties. This decision was stayed by the Supreme Court, Bullock v. Weiser, 404 U.S. 1065, 92 S.Ct. 750, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972), and the 1972 congressional elections were held under the unconstitutional districts. In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion held that the congressional redistricting was unconstitutional, but held that the district court had selected the wrong plan from the alternatives submitted to it because it had not selected the plan which most closely adhered to the “desires of the state legislature.” White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 795, 93 S.Ct. at 2354. On remand, the district court adopted a plan consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion — and this congressional plan was, in essence, codified by the legislature in 1975. c. The 1980’s: Political Thicket III? It was against this background — this history of prolonged, expensive and confusing litigation during two prior decades — that preparation for the 1981 redistricting began almost two years in advance. This preparation was elaborate; it was expensive; and it was comprehensive. The Texas Legislative Council, committees of both the Texas Senate and House of Representatives, and members of the LRB were involved. i. Pre-Session Preparation Representatives of the Texas Legislative Council prepared for redistricting by meeting with officials of the Bureau of Census and of the Department of Justice and by hiring Steve Bickerstaff, an attorney who had represented the State of Texas in prior redistricting litigation, to prepare a comprehensive review of the laws concerning redistricting. Bickerstaff’s comprehensive review — which was published as a law review article — was distributed to all members of the state legislature and to all members of the Texas congressional delegation. It became, in the words of several witnesses, “the bible of redistricting” in the legislative session and before the LRB. The Bickerstaff review analyzed the legal principles concerning redistricting — under the United States Constitution, the applicable state laws, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — particularly in light of the “litigious experience of the State of Texas over the past two decades.” It made specific recommendations as to the conduct of the process. Following Bickerstaff’s recommendations, the Texas legislature conducted well publicized public hearings throughout the State before the legislative session began to allow access to persons or groups who might not be able to attend hearings in Austin. The witnesses at these hearings included representatives of various geographic, economic and minority interests. ii. The Senate After the Texas legislature convened on January 3, 1981, the Senate adopted a “unique procedure” which assured equal access by all interests: all redistricting bills were referred to a Committee of the Senate Sitting as a Whole. This procedure permitted the consideration of every redistricting bill by every member of the Senate. An hispanic Senator, Tati Santiesteban, of El Paso, who had been a member of the Senate since 1972, was appointed as Chairman of the Senate Sitting as a Whole. The Senate held public hearings not only in Austin, but also at seven locations around the State, to afford access to as many people as possible. Testimony and alternative plans were presented by more than 35 representatives of minority groups. In addition to summaries of the testimony at the public hearings, members of the Senate considered Bickerstaff’s legal study and advice from other lawyers, including Jerris Leonard, former head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, who acted as counsel to one Senate subcommittee. The initial plans drafted by the Senate staff were circulated statewide. The final plan, Senate Bill 800 (“S.B. 800”), passed by a vote of 23-7 on May 30, 1981. All minority members of the Texas Senate voted in favor of S.B. 800. Three republican members of the Texas Senate voted in favor of S.B. 800. Four republican Senators voted against it. On June 1, 1981, the Texas legislature adjourned. On June 18, 1981, S.B. 800 was vetoed by Governor William P. Clements. • iii. The House of Representatives In the House, redistricting was the responsibility of the Committee on Regions, Compacts and Districts. The Chairman of this Committee was Representative Tim Von Dohlen. The Vice Chairman of this Committee was an hispanic Representative from El Paso, Robert Valles. Among the 19 other members were one hispanic, three blacks and two republicans. Nineteen public hearings were held in Austin during the spring of 1981. Literally scores of representatives of minority groups testified at those hearings. Public hearings were also held in Corpus Christi, Lubbock, Midland, McAllen, San Antonio, Houston, Beaumont, Fort Worth, Dallas, El Paso, and Belton. Representatives of minority groups spoke at every hearing outside of Austin, with the single exception of Midland. At some of those hearings, half of the witnesses who testified represented minority groups such as the NAACP, LULAC and others. For example, eight of seventeen witnesses at the Dallas hearings held on November 19, 1980, represented minority groups. Further, nearly every other witness, from groups such as the Dallas republican or democratic party, addressed the issues of minority districts and packing. In addition to summaries of the testimony at the hearings, Bickerstaff’s legal study and other legal advice were available to all members of the House. Of the numerous alternatives, the final plan which emerged was House Bill 960 (“H.B. 960”). The vote was 118 to 22. However, H.B. 960 was declared invalid by the Supreme Court of Texas on August 31, 1981, because it violated Article III, § 26 of the Texas Constitution. Clements v. Valles, 620 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.1981). iv. LRB Activities Because of the veto of S.B. 800 and the Texas Supreme Court’s invalidation of H.B. 960, the LRB assembled in Austin on August 30, 1981, the ninetieth day following the adjournment of the regular session of the Legislature, to draw redistricting plans. There were no minority or republican members of the LRB; each of the five members was an anglo democrat. The procedures adopted by the LRB at its first meeting were designed to assure fair and equal access by all interests; all meetings were open; no action was taken in closed session. Formal public notice was given of each meeting, and there was extensive newspaper coverage of the activities and proposals of the LRB. Plans being considered by the LRB were circulated to a mailing list of approximately 700 interested persons and were also widely distributed among members of the press and the public. At each hearing and meeting of the LRB, an opportunity was afforded for persons to testify or comment on matters being considered by the LRB. The LRB heard testimony and accepted reapportionment plans submitted by various individuals on the 24th and 25th of September and on the 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th of October. The record of all public hearings before the Texas legislature was made a part of the record of the LRB. Lieutenant Governor Hobby proposed a Senate plan for the LRB (“the Hobby Plan”), which was based upon S.B. 800, but which made certain modifications m Tar-rant, Dallas, Harris, and Bexar Counties and in District 2 in East Texas and District 27 in South Texas. At the final session of the LRB on October 28, 1981, the Hobby Plan was adopted by a 4-1 vote (with Comptroller Bullock dissenting). Speaker Clayton proposed a House plan for the LRB (“Clayton Plan”), which was based in large part upon H.B. 960. At the final session of the LRB on October 28, 1981, Land Commissioner Armstrong proposed amendments for Bexar, Dallas and Harris Counties which were supported by minority interests. With these amendments, the Clayton Plan was adopted by a 4 — 1 vote (with Comptroller Bullock dissenting). The LRB accepted much of the testimony and adopted many proposals offered by representatives of minority groups and minority legislators, both with respect to the Senate and the House. 2. Taint? In electing to base our temporary court-ordered plans on the LRB plans, we are not unmindful that they are the subject of outstanding objections under the Voting Rights Act. However, the Department of Justice’s most recent letter specifically notes that, with the exception of the House districts in El Paso, Bexar and Dallas Counties, and the Senate Districts in Bexar and Harris Counties, the State had met its burden under Section 5 with respect to the LRB plans. We conclude, therefore, that any taint (see Powell, J., concurring in Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. at 549, 98 S.Ct. at 2501) which exists with respect to the legislative judgment embodied in the LRB plans exists only with respect to those portions of the plans as to which objections continue. The Department of Justice appears to share our view with respect to the ongoing vitality of the legislative judgment embodied in those portions of the LRB plans that are not the subject of continuing Section 5 objections. See Part IV D of this opinion, infra. 3. A Known Quantity There is another important reason for adhering to the LRB plans to the maximum extent possible. Those plans have been the subject of intense study and public scrutiny for many months. They have been the subject of a six day trial in this Court. All parties to this litigation and this Court know vastly more about the LRB plans and their effects than any of us can know about the other plans, modifications to plans and corrections to modifications filed with this Court during the two weeks preceding our March 5 decision. Under these circumstances, elementary caution militates strongly in an emergency in favor of adopting to the greatest extent possible those plans that are best understood by all. D. Voting Rights Act Considerations The effect of the Voting Rights Act on the posture of this case is problematical, to say the least. This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the LRB plans comply from a substantive standpoint with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; the only court with jurisdiction to make such a ruling is the District Court for the District of Columbia. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 400, 91 S.Ct. 431, 442, 27 L.Ed.2d 476 (1971). At the same time, we are told by the portion of the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act quoted in McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. at 147, 101 S.Ct. at 2235, 68 L.Ed.2d at 739, that in fashioning our plans under exigent circumstances we should follow the appropriate Section 5 standards, including the body of administrative and judicial precedents developed in Section 5 cases. This Court must attempt to devise a plan that has neither a racially discriminatory purpose nor such an effect. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976); Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. at 385, 91 S.Ct. at 435. There seems to be no case law which directly addresses the question whether in an emergency we may implement a portion of the LRB plans to which an objection has been interposed by the Department of Justice. In answering the question whether and under what circumstances we may implement on a temporary basis a portion of a legislative plan which is the subject of an outstanding Voting Rights Act objection, we turn to the principles developed by the courts, including the Supreme Court, applicable to emergencies. In those situations courts are bound to apply equitable considerations and in awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court can and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of the State’s election laws. Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 332, 93 S.Ct. 979, 988, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 585, 84 S.Ct. at 1393 (1964). With respect to the timing of relief, a court can reasonably endeavor to avoid a disruption of the election process which might result from requiring precipitate changes that could make unreasonable demands on a State in adjusting to the requirements of the court’s decree. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 585, 84 S.Ct. at 1393. Also in an emergency, a district court may adopt as an interim measure a redistricting plan that otherwise may not comply with the stringent requirements for a permanent court ordered plan, Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. at 19-20, 95 S.Ct. at 762; Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549, 550, 92 S.Ct. 656, 657, 30 L.Ed.2d 704 (1972); Corder v. Kirksey, 639 F.2d 1191, 1195 (5th Cir. 1981); Graves v. Barnes, 408 F.Supp. at 1054. Finally, in emergencies, courts have permitted elections to proceed on the basis of enacted plans or existing districts even when the plans in question were themselves unconstitutional. E.g., White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 783, 93 S.Ct. at 2348; Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 91 S.Ct. 1803, 29 L.Ed.2d 352 (1971); Kilgarlin v. Hill, 386 U.S. at 121, 87 S.Ct. at 821. We think that the same principle should be applicable to a plan as to which a Section 5 objection has been raised: in emergencies, a court should be permitted to proceed on the basis of such a plan or portions of such a plan if that is the only fair and equitable alternative to disruption of the election process. E.g., Graves v. Barnes, 408 F.Supp. at 1054 n.8. Our position is, we believe, firmly supported by the portion of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Reynolds v. Sims dealing with remedies: Remedial techniques in this new and developing area of the law will probably often differ with the circumstances of the challenged apportionment and a variety of local conditions. It is enough to say now that, once a State’s legislative apportionment scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are conducted under the invalid plan. However, under certain circumstances, such as where an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effective relief in a legislative apportionment case, even though the existing apportionment scheme was found invalid. In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles. With respect to the timing of relief, a court can reasonably endeavor to avoid a disruption of the election process which might result from requiring precipitate changes that could make unreasonable or embarrassing demands ón a State in adjusting to the requirements of the court’s decree. As stated by Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring in Baker v. Carr, “any relief accorded can be fashioned in the light of well-known principles of equity. . .. We find, therefore, that the action taken by the District Court in this case, in ordering into effect a reapportionment of both houses of the Alabama Legislature for purposes of the 1962 primary and general elections, by using the best parts of the two proposed plans which it had found, as a whole, to be invalid, was an appropriate and well-considered exercise of judicial power. Admittedly, the lower court’s ordered plan was intended only as a temporary and provisional measure and the District Court correctly indicated that the plan was invalid as a permanent apportionment. In retaining jurisdiction while deferring a hearing on the issuance of a final injunction in order to give the provisionally reapportioned legislature an opportunity to act effectively, the court below proceeded in a proper fashion. 377 U.S. at 585-87, 84 S.Ct. at 1393-94 (emphasis added). Cf., Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. at 114-15, 91 S.Ct. at 1806-07 (district court’s use on a temporary basis of a constitutionally invalid plan upheld where one substitute presented to the court (which could “very likely [result in] a valid reapportionment plan”) could not be implemented to hold the imminent elections on time and other feasible substitute was also unconstitutional and was the greater of two evils). No judicial decision addresses the use of a partially unprecleared plan as a temporary, emergency court-ordered plan. The question of the use of unprecleared plans has arisen in the context of whether a legislative plan must initially be submitted for preclearance, e.g., McDaniel v. Sanchez, supra; Berry v. Doles, 438 U.S. 190, 98 S.Ct. 2692, 57 L.Ed.2d 693 (1978), not in the context of whether portions of a plan which have been submitted for preclearance and have been objected to can be temporarily utilized upon a district court’s finding that parts of the objected to plan are the most equitable under the circumstances. In Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. at 396-97, 91 S.Ct. at 440-41, the Supreme Court refused to order new elections even though elections had been conducted under a plan that had not been precleared. The Court went on to explain: In certain circumstances, for example, it might be appropriate to enter an order affording local officials an opportunity to seek federal approval and ordering a new election only if local officials fail to do so or if the required federal approval is not forthcoming. Since the District Court is more familiar with the nuances of the local situation than are we, and has heard the evidence in this case, we think the question of the appropriate remedy is for that court to determine, in the first instance, after hearing the views of both parties. In Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 93 S.Ct. 1702, 36 L.Ed.2d 472 (1973), the Supreme Court permitted elections to take place under a statewide apportionment plan to which an objection had been interposed. In Horry County v. United States, the District Court for the District of Columbia stated in dicta that [t]he Supreme Court has recognized the equitable power of the District Courts to permit enforcement of such [apportionment] statutes pendente lite notwithstanding Section 5. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 541, 93 S.Ct. 1702, 36 L.Ed.2d 472 (1973); Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 396-397, 91 S.Ct. 431, 27 L.Ed.2d 476 (1971). 449 F.Supp. 990, 996 (D.D.C.1978). Thus, based upon Perkins v. Matthews and Georgia v. United States, the grant of equitable temporary relief by this Court through the use of districts that are the subject of Section 5 objections is not per se contrary to the prohibitions of Section 5. As emphasized in Georgia, it is equitable considerations which determine what temporary plan should be utilized. In devising our temporary plans for the reapportionment of the Texas Senate and House, we have been governed by the foregoing principles. We have elected to honor the valid and unchallenged portions of the legislative judgment. With respect to each district which is the subject of an unresolved objection under Section 5, we have treated the objection as a “given” (since we are precluded from passing on its validity) and we have considered alternatives presented by the parties from the standpoint of fairness, equity and feasibility. The Department of Justice, in a letter to the Secretary of State dated February 23, 1982, appears to concur to a significant extent in our view of our role. The letter says, in relevant part, that this Court “should attempt to effectuate the legislative judgment and modify the [legislature’s plans only as necessary to meet the concerns raised in the objection letters.” To that description of our role, we would add only two caveats. We