Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 16

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (MALC, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-360-OLG-JES-XR [Lead case] CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case]

2 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 2 of 16 MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants. JOHN T. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-592-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-615-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-635-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMAN PETE GALLEGO AND CONGRESSMAN FILEMON VELA, JR. Defendants Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor, John Steen, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and the State of Texas (collectively DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 2

3 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 3 of 16 Defendants file this Opposition to the Motion to Intervene filed on behalf of Congressman Pete Gallego and Congressman Filemon Vela, Jr. INTRODUCTION The consolidated redistricting cases have been pending before this Court for over two years since May Since these cases were filed, this Court has held a two-week trial and numerous evidentiary hearings, and has considered thousands of pages of evidence to determine the merit of challenges under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution brought by individual plaintiffs and plaintiff organizations all purporting to represent the interests of minority voters across the State of Texas. This Court has issued preliminary relief through a court-ordered interim plan and is now preparing for the issuance of final judgment and the remedial phase of this case. Despite the long history of this case and the current procedural posture, Congressman Gallego and Congressman Vela now seek to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a to assert new claims against the Defendants. See Motion to Intervene at p. 4, 4 (Docket No. 758, June 10, For the reasons stated below, this Court should deny Congressman Gallego and Congressman Vela s request for intervention because they have failed to satisfy the requirements for intervention set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. ARGUMENT Federal Rule 24 requires would-be intervenors to file a pleading that sets out the claim for which intervention is sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c. The Congressmen s Motion is insufficient as drafted to notify the parties of the claims DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 3

4 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 4 of 16 they intend to assert. It is unclear, for instance, whether the Congressmen intend to assert new claims or whether they simply intend to echo claims already asserted by the plaintiffs in this case. Because the basis for the Congressmen s intervention is unclear, it is virtually impossible to determine whether they have standing to intervene or whether they have satisfied the standards for intervention under Rule 24. Under Federal Rule 24(a, [a] party seeking to intervene as of right must satisfy four requirements: (1 the application must be timely; (2 the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3 the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4 the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit. Sierra Club v. Epsy, 18 F.3d 1202, (5th Cir Failure to meet any one of these requirements precludes intervention under Federal Rule (a(2. Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 999 (5th Cir (en banc. Although permissive intervention is discretionary, the court should consider the timeliness of the motion and whether the intervenors interests are already adequately represented by other parties. See Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. Tex Thus, for a party to be permitted to intervene as of right or permissively, the motion to intervene must be timely and the intervenors must show that the existing parties have failed to adequately represent their interests. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 4

5 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 5 of 16 Federal Rule 24 also requires would-be intervenors to file a pleading that sets out the claim for which intervention is sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c. The Congressmen s motion is not accompanied by a complaint. The Motion contends only that the Congressmen seek to intervene to insure that any future Texas Congressional redistricting plans fully protect the residents and voters of the 23 rd and 34 th Congressional Districts and also minority voters throughout the State of Texas. Congressmen acting in their official capacity have no legally protectable interest in redistricting. LULAC Council No v. Clements, 884 F.2d 185, 188 (5th Cir ( Because it is a legislative action, [elected officials other than state legislators] play no part in creating or revising the election scheme and, therefore, fail to meet the real party in interest test.. Even if they could assert a legally cognizable interest as private citizens, the Congressmen come too late, for they have been aware of this redistricting litigation for several years and they appear to assert interests already adequately represented by the plaintiffs in this case. Accordingly, their motion should be denied. A. The Intervenors Motion is Untimely. The timeliness of a motion to intervene is determined by analyzing the following four factors: (1 the length of time during which the would-be intervenor actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case before it petitioned for leave to intervene; (2 the extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the would-be intervenor's failure to apply for intervention as soon as it knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case; (3 the extent of the prejudice that the would-be intervenor may suffer if intervention is denied; and (4 the DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 5

6 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 6 of 16 existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at Prejudice to existing parties is measured by the delay in seeking intervention, not the inconvenience to the existing parties of allowing the intervenor to participate in the litigation. Id. at The trial in this case occurred in September 2011, and the last evidentiary hearing before this Court occurred in February Given that it has been almost two years since the trial in this case, any request for intervention at this stage of the litigation is untimely on its face. See LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 881, 884 n.11 (5th Cir (holding that motion for intervention under Rule 24 was untimely where certain district judges sought to intervene as defendants after trial. Congressman Gallego and Congressman Vela rest their claim to intervention largely on the first factor, contending that because they were just elected to office in November 2012, they have just acquired an interest in this litigation. See Motion to Intervene at p. 4, 5. As noted above, any interest they gained upon election to office is not an interest that is legally cognizable in a redistricting case. See LULAC, 884 F.2d at 188. Regardless, Congressmen Gallego and Vela have long been aware of this litigation. Congressman Gallego began his campaign in September 2011, and he was a member of the Texas House and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus when the challenged plans were enacted and when this litigation began. Congressman Vela started his campaign in February Garza v. County of Los Angeles is instructive on timeliness. 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir In this Voting Rights Act case, a candidate for office attempted to DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 6

7 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 7 of 16 intervene in the case, claiming an interest in a new Hispanic district contemplated by the court. Id. at The motion to intervene was filed during the remedial phase of the case after a bench trial, after the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, and after the court gave the County an opportunity to remedy their redistricting plans. Id. at 767. The court denied her motion to intervene as untimely, explaining: Id. at 777. Flores [the candidate] knew that this lawsuit was pending at the time when she decided to run in the election, and knew that part of the relief sought was a redistricting plan that could affect the outcome of the election. She did not petition to intervene until four months after she declared her candidacy, which was almost two years after the proceedings had been instituted. While Flores points out that the entry of a trial into a new stage may be the appropriate point for intervention, such is only the case where the new phase develops as a result of a change in the law or the factual circumstances. Here, the new phase came about in the general progression of the case to a close. Under Garza, the Congressmen s motion is untimely. At the latest, the Congressmen were aware of their interests in this litigation when they decided to run for office in September, , and February, They did not attempt to intervene until twenty-one months and fifteen months after announcing their candidacies. In those intervening months, a trial was held and substantial briefing occurred. Moreover, approximately seven months have passed between the election and the Motion to Intervene. See Motion to Intervene at p. 4, 5. Over thirty 1 Congressman Gallego declared his candidacy on September 1, Mike Perry, Gallego Makes It Official: He s Running for U.S. Congress, Alpine Daily Planet, September 1, 2011, 2 Congressman Vela announced his candidacy on February 22, Emma Perez-Trevino, Vela Announces Candidacy for U.S. Congress, The Brownsville Herald, February 22, 2012, DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 7

8 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 8 of 16 pleadings, including several substantive and procedural advisories, have been filed in this case since the election. While the Congressmen claim that the litigation is moving into a new phase, that phase is due to the natural progression of this case as currently postured, not any changes in the law or factual circumstances other than the progression of time. The existing parties will be prejudiced by allowing intervention at this late date. While the Congressmen cannot reopen discovery and must take the proceedings as they find them, Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1206, new voices asserting new claims against Defendants at this late date will only delay the suit s progress toward final judgment. The Congressmen will suffer no prejudice if their motion to intervene is denied because their interests are adequately represented by other parties to the litigation. This point is addressed in more detail below. There are no unusual circumstances militating in favor of finding the application to be timely. Accordingly, this Court should deny the motion for intervention. B. The Intervenors Interests are Adequately Represented by Existing Parties. Although untimeliness alone is fatal to Congressman Gallego and Congressman Vela s intervention, their request fails for a second reason their interests as private citizens are more than adequately represented by the current parties to the action. Although the applicant s burden of showing inadequate representation is minimal, courts have noted that it cannot be treated as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., 940 F.2d at 120 (quoting Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 355 (5th Cir DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 8

9 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 9 of 16 The Fifth Circuit has recognized that a presumption of adequate representation arises when the would-be intervenor has the same ultimate objective as a party to the lawsuit. See Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1005 (5th Cir In such cases, the applicant for intervention must demonstrate adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance on the part of the existing party to overcome the presumption. Id. (citations omitted; see also Staley v. Harris County, Tex. 223 F.R.D. 458, 464 (S.D.Tex., 2004; United States v. Franklin Parish Sch. Bd., 47 F.3d 755, 757 (5th Cir.1995 (citing Kneeland v. NCAA, 806 F.2d 1285, 1288 (5th Cir. 1987; International Tank Terminals, Ltd. v. M/V Acadia Forest, 579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir Here, the Congressmen have made no allegations about adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance on the part of the existing party as required under Edwards. Instead, the Congressmen contend the purpose of the intervention is to fully protect the residents and voters of the 23rd and 34th Congressional Districts and also minority voters throughout the State of Texas. Motion to Intervene at p. 2, 2. There can be no dispute that many of the existing Plaintiffs in this case have similar interests in protecting the residents and voters of these districts and the State as a whole. The existing parties have actively advanced arguments on behalf of the residents and voters of the Congressmen s districts and on behalf of minority voters throughout the State of Texas. Throughout the litigation, the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus ( MALC, Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force ( TLRTF, and various Plaintiff-Intervenors have presented arguments regarding DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 9

10 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 10 of 16 Congressman Gallego s District 23 3 and Congressman Vela s District Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors challenged the congressional plan under Section 2 and specifically claimed that Congressional District 23 as existed in the legislative plan failed to provide Latinos the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. These same Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors participated during the interim plan hearing stage and all advocated for changes to be made to Congressional District 23 that would protect the voting rights of Latinos in that districts. 5 Similarly, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors also challenged the congressional plan passed by the 2011 Legislature under Section 2 because it failed to create an additional Latino opportunity in South Texas. This is the same geographic location as Congressional District Thus, Congressmen Gallego and Vela pursue the same ultimate objectives as the existing parties in the consolidated cases, and for this reason, the Congressmen s interests are adequately represented by the existing parties. Edwards, 78 F.3d at See Order regarding Plan C235 (Docket No. 691, March 19, 2012 at (summarizing arguments; see infra p. 8, notes 6 and 7. 4 See Order regarding Plan C235 (Docket No. 691, March 19, 2012 at (summarizing arguments see infra p. 8, notes 6 and 7. 5 E.g. MALC Post-Trial Brief at 28 (Docket No. 412, October 7, 2011; TLRTF s Post-Trial Brief at (Docket No. 416, October 8, 2011; MALC s Advisory Regarding CD 23 in Plan C226 (Docket No. 671, February 22, 2012; LULAC s Advisory to the Court Regarding CD 23 in Plan 226 (Docket No. 673, February 22, 2012; TLRTF s Advisory to the Court Regarding CD 23 in Plan 226 (Docket No. 677, February 22, E.g. Perez Plaintiffs Post-Trial Brief at (Docket No. 401, October 7, 2011; MALC Post-Trial Brief at 17 (Docket No. 412, October 7, 2011; TLRTF s Post-Trial Brief at (Docket No. 416, October 8, DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 10

11 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 11 of 16 CONCLUSION The Congressmen s Motion to Intervene should be denied because it is untimely and because the Congressmen have identified no legally cognizable interest that is not adequately represented by the existing parties. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 11

12 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 12 of 16 Dated: June 13, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas DANIEL T. HODGE First Assistant Attorney General /s/ David C. Mattax Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation Texas Bar No PATRICK K. SWEETEN Chief, Special Litigation Division Texas Bar No ANGELA COLMENERO Assistant Attorney General Texas Bar No JENNIFER SETTLE JACKSON Assistant Attorney General Texas Bar No MATTHEW H. FREDERICK Assistant Solicitor General Texas Bar No P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX ( ( (fax ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, RICK PERRY, and JOHN STEEN DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 12

13 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 13 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent on June 13, 2013, via the Court s electronic notification system and/or to the following counsel of record: DAVID RICHARDS Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 Austin, TX davidr@rrsfirm.com RICHARD E. GRAY, III Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX / (facsimile Rick.gray@graybecker.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ, DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ, SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ JOSE GARZA Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas garzpalm@aol.com MARK W. KIEHNE mkiehne@lawdcm.com RICARDO G. CEDILLO rcedillo@lawdcm.com Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza McCombs Plaza 755 Mulberry Ave., Ste. 500 San Antonio, TX / (facsimile GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN ggandh@aol.com DONALD H. FLANARY, III donflanary@hotmail.com Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley 310 S. St. Mary s Street San Antonio, TX / (facsimile PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B. DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING AMUNSON Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Washington, D.C J. GERALD HEBERT 191 Somervelle Street, # 405 Alexandria, VA hebert@voterlaw.com JESSE GAINES P.O. Box Fort Worth, TX gainesjesse@ymail.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS QUESADA, MUNOZ, VEASEY, HAMILTON, KING and JENKINS ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 13

14 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 14 of 16 NINA PERALES MARISA BONO Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX / (facsimile MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ ROBERT W. WILSON Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC 115 East Travis Street, Ste San Antonio, TX / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ, TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ JOHN T. MORRIS 5703 Caldicote St. Humble, TX JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE MAX RENEA HICKS Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West Sixth Street Suite 504 Austin, TX /512/ (facsimile ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX SERNA, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, MILTON GERARD WASHINGTON, and SANDRA SERNA LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR. Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. & Associates 1325 Riverview Towers San Antonio, Texas GEORGE JOSEPH KORBEL Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc North Main San Antonio, TX ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS ROLANDO L. RIOS Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios 115 E Travis Street, Suite 1645 San Antonio, TX rrios@rolandorioslaw.com ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR GARY L. BLEDSOE Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe 316 W. 12 th Street, Ste. 307 Austin, TX / (facsimile garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON- LEE, ALEXANDER GREEN, HOWARD JEFFERSON, BILL LAWSON, and JUANITA WALLACE DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 14

15 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 15 of 16 STEPHEN E. MCCONNICO SAM JOHNSON S. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III Scott, Douglass & McConnico One American Center 600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor Austin, TX / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F. LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA ALVARADO, JOSEY MARTINEZ, JUANITA VALDEZ-COX, LIONOR SOROLA- POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and SANDRA SERNA CHAD W. DUNN K. SCOTT BRAZIL Brazil & Dunn 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, TX / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- DEFENDANTS TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and BOYD RICHIE VICTOR L. GOODE Asst. Gen. Counsel, NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD / (facsimile ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES ROBERT NOTZON Law Office of Robert S. Notzon 1507 Nueces Street Austin, TX / (facsimile ALLISON JEAN RIGGS ANITA SUE EARLS Southern Coalition for Social Justice 1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101 Durham, NC / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, EARLS, LAWSON, WALLACE, and JEFFERSON DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON PO Box Austin, TX / (facsimile FRANK M. REILLY Potts & Reilly, L.L.P. P.O. Box 4037 Horseshoe Bay, TX / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STEVE MUNISTERI DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 15

16 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 759 Filed 06/13/13 Page 16 of 16 Via JOAQUIN G. AVILA P.O. Box Seattle, WA / (facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS KAREN M. KENNARD 2803 Clearview Drive Austin, TX ( / (facsimile ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF AUSTIN DAVID ESCAMILLA Travis County Asst. Attorney P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX ( ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRAVIS COUNTY /s/ David C. Mattax DAVID C. MATTAX DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CONGRESSMEN GALLEGO AND VELA PAGE 16