RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS EQUALLY

Equal Protection of the Laws.
If the courts stretched Fourteenth Amendment “due process” to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, they stretched Fifth Amendment “due process” to require the federal government to afford equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states from establishing segregated schools or otherwise discriminating invidiously against some of their citizens. There is no equal protection clause in the Bill of Rights. In a case involving segregation in the schools of Washington, D.C., which as the nation’s capital is a federal enclave governed by federal law, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause operates against the federal government just as the Equal Protection Clause does against the states.

Substantive due process
The words “due process” suggest a concern with procedure, and that is how the Due Process Clause is usually understood. We have just seen, however, that the clause has been taken as a kind of proxy for other rights. In those cases, the rights were actually expressed somewhere in the Constitution, but only as rights against federal (or state) action. What about rights the Constitution does not mention — “unnamed rights,” as Charles Black calls them, like the right to work in an ordinary kind of job, or to marry, or to raise one’s children as a parent? The dominant constitutional controversy of the first third of this century, which still echoes in the arguments about abortion and other “privacy” issues like sexual preference, was about an idea called “substantive due process.” The question was whether "due process of law" might put substantive limits on what legislatures could enact, as well as require procedures of judges and administrators. Thus, in 1905, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers, because it thought the public benefit of the law did not justify depriving the bakers of their right to work under whatever terms they liked. For thirty years, conservative judges sometimes used this idea to find legislative judgments about social or economic programs invalid, retarding the emergence of social welfare legislation. In the late 1930's, after years of sharp criticism, the substantive due process approach was repudiated for "economic regulation." Many think the idea is still vital as a barrier to legislation curbing other individual liberties, however – the right to privacy, for example.

The promise of legality and fair procedure
While the text of the due process clause is extremely general, the fact that it appears twice makes clear that it states a central proposition. Historically, the clause reflects the Magna Carta (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html) of Great Britain, King John’s thirteenth century promise to his noblemen that he would act only in accordance with law (“legality”) and that all would receive the ordinary processes (procedures) of law. It also echoes that country's Seventeenth Century struggles for political and legal regularity, and the American colonies' strong insistence during the pre-Revolutiona­ry period on observance of regular legal order. The requirement that government function in accordance with law is, in itself, ample basis for understanding the stress given these words. A commitment to legality is at the heart of all advanced legal systems, and the Due Process Clause often thought to embody that commitment.

The clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be. Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Suppose, for example, state law gives students a right to a public education, but doesn’t say anything about discipline. Before the state could take that right away from a student, by expelling her for misbehavior, it would have to provide fair procedures – “due process.”

How can we know whether process is due (what counts as a “deprivation” of “life, liberty or property”), when it is due, and what procedures have to be followed (what process is “due” in those cases)? If "due process" refers chiefly to procedural subjects, it says very little about these questions. Courts unwilling just to accept legislative judgments have to find answers somewhere else. The Supreme Court’s struggles over how to find these answers echo its interpretational controversies over the years, and reflect the changes in the general nature of the relationship between citizens and government.

In the Nineteenth Century government was relatively simple, and its actions relatively limited. Most of the time it sought to deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property it did so through criminal law, for which the Bill of Rights explicitly stated quite a few procedures that had to be followed (like the right to a jury trial) – rights that were well understood by lawyers and courts operating in the long traditions of English common law. Occasionally it might act in other ways, for example in assessing taxes. In two decisions at the very beginning of the Twentieth Century the Supreme Court held that only politics (the citizen’s “power, immediate or remote, over those who make the rule”) controlled the state’s action setting the level of taxes, but if the dispute was about a taxpayer’s individual liability, not a general question, the taxpayer had a right to some kind of a hearing (“the right to support his allegations by arguments however brief and, if need be, by proof however informal”). This left the state a lot of room to say what procedures it would provide, but did not permit it to deny them altogether. Another early case suggested flexibility about the timing and nature of a required hearing. When a health inspector decided some chickens in cold storage had rotted, he didn’t have to hold a hearing before he could seize and destroy them, so they could not be sold; but the owner of the chickens could sue the inspector afterwards, and if it convinced the jury that the chickens were not rotten, make the inspector repay their value.

Whether process is due
The cases just mentioned established one important distinction: the Constitution does not require “due process” for establishing laws; the provision applies when the state acts against individuals “in each case upon individual grounds” – when some characteristic unique to the citizen is involved. Of course there may be a lot of citizens affected; the issue is whether assessing the effect depends “in each case upon individual grounds.” Thus, the due process clause doesn’t govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them – even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.

Even when an individual is unmistakably acted against on individual grounds, there can be a questions whether the state has “deprive[d]” her of “life, liberty or property.” The first thing to notice here is that there must be state action. The Due Process Clause doesn’t apply to a private school taking discipline against one of its students (although that school will probably want to follow similar principles).

Whether state action against an individual was a deprivation of life, liberty or property was initially resolved by a distinction between “rights” and “privileges.” Process was due if rights were involved, but the state could act as it pleased in relation to privileges. But as modern society developed, it became harder to tell the two apart. Was a driver’s license a “right” or a “privilege”? How about a government job? Enrolment on welfare? An initial reaction to the increasing dependence of citizens on their government was to look at the seriousness of the impact of government action on an individual, without asking, as such, about the nature of the relationship affected. Process was due before the government could take an action that affected a citizen in a grave way.

In the early 1970's, however, this gave way to an analysis that accepted as a threshold question whether “life, liberty or property” was directly affected by state action, but that required these concepts to be very broadly interpreted. Two Supreme Court cases involved teachers at state colleges whose contracts of employment had not been renewed – they thought, because of some political positions they had taken. Were they entitled to a hearing before they could be treated in this way? Previously, a state job was a “privilege” and the answer to this question was an emphatic “No!” Now, the Court decided that whether either of the two teachers had "property" would depend in each instance on whether persons in their position, under state law, held some form of tenure. or rather. One teacher had just been on a short term contract; because he served "at will" – without any state law claim or expectation to continuation – he had no “entitlement” once his contract expired. The other teacher worked under a longer-term arrangement that school officials seemed to have encouraged him to regard as a continuing one. This could create an “entitlement,” the Court said; the expectation need not be based on a statute, and an established custom of treating instructors who had taught for X years as having tenure could be shown. While, thus, some law-based relationship or expectation of continuation had to be shown before a federal court would say that process was "due," constitutional “property” was no longer just what the common law called “property”; it now included any legal relationship with the state that state law regarded as in some sense an “entitlement” of the citizen. Licenses, government jobs protected by civil service, or places on the welfare rolls were all defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away – and therefore process was due before they could be taken away. This restated the formal “right/privilege” idea, but did so in a way that recognized the new dependency of citizens on relations with government, the “new property” as one scholar influentially called it.

The application of this threshold test for whether process is due has presented three problems. The first is called the "positivist trap." Since whether one has an entitlement depends on the prescriptions of state law, legislatures may be able to define important relationships – ones on which citizens in fact come to depend – in ways that preclude the conclusion that an "entitlement" is present. Recent "welfare reform" legislation has been explicit that one its purposes is to end any idea that welfare is an "entitlement"; although largely directed to the question how long one may remain on welfare, the rhetoric seems also aimed at the “new property” idea.

We are not discussing “liberty,” but you can see that similar problems will arise, perhaps even more importantly. What decisions affecting prisoners involve their “liberty” has been a particularly aggravating problem. The courts do not want to engage in close supervision of prison issues, but at the same time must recognize the plain command of the language of the clause.
Moreover, if the provisions of a state law define not only an entitlement but also the procedures by which that relationship can be ended or altered, how can a court separate the two? Mustn't the citizen be prepared to accept the "bitter with the sweet"? This issue was presented when civil servants, enjoying tenure under statutes that provided for the procedures to be followed for removal, challenged the constitutionality of aspects of the removal procedures. The Court rejected the "bitter with the sweet" reasoning, but not without indicating a high level of respect for legislative judgments about what procedures would be fair.

The second problem might be described as a problem about what is a "deprivation." A series of cases involving state harm to citizens led the Court to an almost inexplicable series of "due process" results. For example, an early case held that a state could not post a picture of a person naming him as an habitual drunkard without first providing a chance for a hearing; the posting made it unlawful for that person to be served alcoholic beverages in a bar. Yet when a city circulated the photograph of a person recently arrested (but not convicted) for petty theft under the heading "Active Shoplifters," causing enormous damage to his reputation, the failure first to provide a hearing was not objectionable. Another case established that school officials could not suspend a student for ten days without first giving him some kind of hearing; attendance at public school was an "entitlement." Yet a teacher who physically punished a student so severely that it kept him out of school for several days (but who did not formally exclude him from school) had not deprived her student of liberty or property without due process of law. Where liability was denied, perhaps one could say the challenged official acts did not change the victim's legal status. It was still lawful to shop, or to come to school if health permitted. Yet the harms seem if anything worse than in the cases where procedure was required. Some have thought it important that in these cases (and others), state law appeared to provide a remedy after the fact; the victim could sue the official for slander or for assault. To find "due process" violations in such matters would involve the federal courts in what had traditionally been the business of state law. As a dissenter in the corporal punishment case observed, these considerations appear to explain the results in a technical sense. Yet it seems fair to characterize the justice of the opposing results in these cases as deeply questionable.

Finally, what about cases of potential entitlements for which a citizen is applying, and has not qualified? Does a statute saying that every citizen with characteristics A, B and C shall receive stated benefits or earn a driver's license create an "entitlement," so that "due process" constrains the application procedures the state can chose? Once qualified, the citizen could not be deprived of her "entitlement" without due process. Yet the Supreme Court has not said directly whether the same judgment applies at the application stage, and some Justices apparently believe that it does not. On the one hand, it can be said that the law is always more solicitous of established relationships than expectations. However, the "entitlement" analysis suffers some embarrassment in this argument. The claim of the citizen to state legality seems the same whether he has wrongly been denied access to an entitlement he has not yet enjoyed or has been terminated in one previously recognized.

When process is due
In its early decisions, like the rotten chicken case, the Supreme Court seemed repeatedly to indicate that, where only property rights were at stake (and particularly if there was some demonstrable urgency for public action) necessary hearings could be postponed to follow provisional, even irreversible, government action. This presumption changed in 1970 with the decision in Goldberg v. Kelly (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Goldberg%20v.%20Kelly&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0254_ZO.html), a case arising out of a state-administered welfare program. New York was seeking to terminate the enrolment of Kelly and others in its welfare program. It conceded that a federal statute required it to provide a full hearing before a hearing officer before finally terminating their enrolment and even – anticipating the new property, “entitlement” approach – that the Due Process Clause required such a hearing. At issue in the case was only its effort to suspend payments pending that full and formal hearing, a question in effect of timing. For this limited purpose New York employed a more informal process. It was willing to give persons like Mrs. Kelly opportunities to confer with responsible social workers and to submit written views before suspension, but it gave no "hearing" in the judicial sense before the suspension was put into effect.

The tremendous need facing a person dependent on welfare, even over a few weeks or months, persuaded the Goldberg Court that a suspension is in itself a deprivation, one that requires a hearing before it could be put into effect. Except for the situations mentioned earlier, where the courts have thought that a tort action could be an adequate remedy against officials who cause harm without affecting legal status, Goldberg in effect created a pre­sump­tion that hearings must come first. The "hearing first" aspect of its holding spread rapidly through a variety of civil judicial remedies – for example, limiting traditional summary procedures lenders had used to repossess cars bought on credit, when payments ceased. This aspect seems reasonably stable in today’s law.

It is interesting that these cases have never made what might seem an obvious comparison. In criminal law, the state often takes very damaging actions against people pending trial, with only limited procedural safeguards. Arrest and search require, at most, that police satisfy a judicial officer, a magistrate, that they have reasonable grounds to act; the person they are going to act against has no right to be present at the time. Detention pending trial requires no more than a showing of “probable cause,” and the person who is going to be detained has no right to present witnesses or ask questions of the persons who present evidence for the state. The result may be time in jail, disrupted families, terrible damage to reputation, the loss of a job. The inquiry New York made about Mrs. Kelley seems easily comparable to these criminal law inquiries, but that comparison was never made.

What procedures are due
Probably the hardest of the analytic questions arising under the procedural aspect of “due process” is this one, just what procedures are constitutionally due. This is a question that has to be answered for criminal trials (where the Bill of Rights provides many explicit answers), for civil trials (where the long history of English practice provides some landmarks), and for administrative proceedings, which did not appear on the legal landscape until a century or so after the Due Process Clause was first adopted. Because there are the fewest landmarks, the administrative cases present the hardest issues, and these are the ones we will discuss.

As we have seen, the earliest expressions were very indefinite. The state had to provide “some kind of a hearing,” giving the citizen “the right to support his allegations by arguments however brief and, if need be, by proof however informal.” The battle over incorporation, however, made this seem a very subjective inquiry, and the reaction to the excesses of substantive due process made that subjectivity suspect. Judicially defining the liberties "indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man" case by case seemed a hazardous enterprise. At the same time, developments in the 1950's underscored the importance of fair administrative procedures. This was the time of McCarthy­ism and the red-baiting that went with it. Rumors generated by faceless informers were widely used to deprive government employees of their jobs because of doubts raised about their loyalty and security. The resulting inquiries often left the employees with their honor challenged but no realistic possibility of response. They emphasized the value, in an administrative context, of procedural protections long associated with Anglo-American criminal trials: the right to have the assistance of counsel; the right to know one's accuser and the evidence against one; the right to confront and cross-examine that person; the right to have decision based solely upon a record generated in open proceedings; as well as the right to present argument and evidence on one's own behalf.

Yet, for each case that seemed to demand a detailed procedural prescription, another plainly required flexibility. A legislative investigation of alleged communistic activities could not be undertaken without respecting witness' claims to procedural safeguards; but the Court would not burden a legislative investigation into civil rights issues with rigid procedural requirements, although the investigation's conclusions might harm the reputation of witnesses before it in some parts of the country. An aeronautic engineer could not be threatened with loss of access to military secrets on which his profession depended, on the basis of anonymous accusations about his loyalty, without the opportunity to confront the information and his accuser; but a cook on a military installation threatened with loss of access to the installation (and hence that particular job), apparently on the basis of undisclosed concerns about her security status, had in all the circumstances no similar claim. The Court during this period seemed to agree on little, save the proposition that what the due process clause required could only be determined on the basis of all the circumstances of a given case -- a view not far distant from "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.”

When the Goldberg Court came to answer the “what” question, it held that the state must provide a hearing before an impartial judicial officer, the right to an attorney's help, the right to present evidence and argument orally, the chance to examine all materials that would be relied on or to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, or a decision limited to the record thus made and explained in an opinion. The Court's basis for this elaborate holding has never been clear, although it seems to have some roots in the incorporation debates. Various prior cases were cited for the different ingredients provided for – the naval engineer's case (but not the cook's), for example, on the question of cross-examina­tion – but without attention to the possibility the requirements of due process would vary form setting to setting. The opinion was written as if all would agree that the procedures it was discussing were generally required whenever procedure was “due.” Yet, overall, the collection of procedures it required was atypically demanding even of final government administrative determinations on issues of great importance. A survey of forty federal programs made a few years after Goldberg, for example, found only one other program (also welfare-oriented) in which all the Goldberg rights were respected. For the substantial majority, fewer than half were provided; only notice, the assurance of some degree of impartiality, and an explanation of the basis of decision were observed with any degree of universality.

Perhaps for this reason, an outpouring of cases after Goldberg’s due process “explosion” quickly persuaded the Supreme Court to a more discriminating approach. Process was “due” to the student suspended for ten days, as to the doctor deprived of his license to practice medicine or the person accused of being a security risk; yet the difference in seriousness of the outcomes, of the charges, and of the institutions involved made it clear there could be no list of procedures that were always “due.” What the Constitution required would inevitably be dependent on the situation. What process is “due” is a question to which there cannot be a single answer.

A successor case to Goldberg, Mathews v. Eldridge (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Mathews%20v.%20Eldridge&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0319_ZO.html), tried instead to define a method by which due process questions could be successfully presented by lawyers and answered by courts. The approach it defined has remained the Court’s preferred method from resolving questions what process is due (although not one that the Court always refers to; sometimes it simply invokes tradition or some other basis for understanding). Mathews arose in a context much like Goldberg; Mr. Eldridge had been receiving disability benefits under a federally supported scheme. Responsible officials came to believe, on the basis of information he had provided and physicians' reports, that he was no longer disabled. They then notified him that they intended to terminate his benefits. Only written procedures were available before the termination was made provisionally effective. Eldridge was entitled to a full oral hearing at a later date, and would have received full benefits for the interim period if he prevailed. His argument, like Kelly's in Goldberg v. Kelly, was that even suspending payments to him pending the full hearing was a deprivation of a property interest that could not be effected without the use of the procedures specified in Goldberg.

Where Goldberg had listed procedures that had to be followed, Mathews attempted to define how judges should ask about constitutionally required procedures. The Court said three factors had to be analyzed:

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
Using these factors, the Court first found the private interest here less significant than in Goldberg. A person who is arguably disabled but provisionally denied disability benefits, it said, is more likely to be able to find other "potential sources of temporary income" than a person who is arguably impoverished but provisionally denied welfare assistance. Respecting the second, it found the risk of error in using written procedures for the initial judgment to be low, and unlikely to be significantly reduced by adding oral or confrontational procedures of the Goldberg variety. It reasoned that disputes over eligibility for disability insurance typically concern one's medical condition, which could be decided, at least provisionally, on the basis of documentary submissions.; it was impressed that Eldridge had full access to the agency's files, and the opportunity to submit in writing any further material he wished. Finally, the Court now attached more importance than the Goldberg Court had to the government's claims for efficiency. In particular, the Court assumed (as the Goldberg Court had not) that "resources available for any particular program of social welfare are not unlimited." Thus additional administrative costs for suspension hearings and payments while those hearings were awaiting resolution to persons ultimately found undeserving of benefits would subtract from the amounts available to pay benefits for those undoubtedly eligible to participate in the program. The Court also gave some weight to the "good-faith judgments" of the plan administrators what appropriate consideration of the claims of applicants would entail.

Matthews v. Eldridge thus reorients the inquiry in a number of important respects. First, it emphasizes the variability of procedural requirements. Rather than create a standard list of procedures that, en gross, constitute the procedure that is "due," the opinion emphasizes that each setting or program invites its own assessment. About the only general statement that can be made is that persons holding interests protected by the due process clause are entitled to "some kind of hearing." Just what the elements of that hearing might be, however, depends on the concrete circumstances of the particular program at issue. Second, that assessment is to be made both concretely, and in a holistic manner. It is not a matter of approving this or that particular element of a procedural matrix in isolation, but of assessing the suitability of the ensemble in context.

Third, and particularly important in its implications for litigation seeking procedural change, the assessment is to be made at the level of program operation, rather than in terms of the particular needs of the particular litigants involved in the matter before the Court. Cases thatare pressed to appellate courts often are characterized by individual facts that make an unusually strong appeal for proceduralization. Indeed, one can often say that they are chosen for that appeal by the lawyers, when the lawsuit is supported by one of the many American organizations that seeks to use the courts to help establish their view of sound social policy. Justice William Brennan, the author of Goldberg, wrote about it afterwards in just these terms, and dissented from Mathews in a manner that again drew strongly on the plight of the particular individual threatened with loss of welfare in that case, as distinct from the general situation of disability benefit recipients and the general operation of the program, on which the majority had focused. The approach required by the Mathews majority seems more likely to preserve than to endanger existing procedural arrangements. Finally, and to similar effect, the second of the stated tests places on the party challenging the existing procedures the burden not only of demonstrating their insufficiency, but also of showing that some specific substitute or additional procedure will work a concrete improvement justifying its additional cost. Thus, it is inadequate merely to criticize. The litigant claiming procedural insufficiency must be prepared with a substitute program that can itself be justified.

The Mathews approach is most successful when it is viewed as a set of instructions to attorneys involved in litigation concerning procedural issues. Attorneys now know how to make a persuasive showing on a procedural "due process" claim are, and the probable effect of the approach is to discourage litigation drawing its motive force from the narrow (even if compelling) circumstances of a particular individual's position. The hard problem for the courts in the Mathews approach, which may be unavoidable, is suggested by the absence of fixed doctrine about the content of "due process" and by very breadth of the inquiry required to establish its demands in a particular context. A judge has few reference points to begin with, and must decide on the basis of considerat­ions (such as the nature of a government program or the probable impact of a procedural requirement) that are very hard to develop in a trial. A not-at-all-surpris­ing result is to encourage judges to accept resolution of procedural issues by legislatures or others better placed to make these complex yet general assessments.

Two examples may illustrate the problems judges face. The first arose when one of the federal circuit courts of appeal had to decide a dispute about the procedures to be followed in determining certain low-value claims under the national medical insurance scheme. Initially, the court ruled with confidence that access to some kind of oral procedure was required under some circumstances, for no reported case had ever approved a completely written procedure for a setting in which process was "due." Yet this reference point arose outside the Mathews decision as such; and when the case returned to the court at a later stage, it became clear that the Mathews inquiry did not answer for the court just how tightly access to an oral procedure could be controlled and just how informal that procedure could be. For example, would provision for discussions over the telephone suffice? The detailed outcome of the lawsuit seemed much more likely to be the product of negotiations between the litigants than to be the result of judicial decision.

The second example involved a statute that, by very severely restricting the fees that could be paid, had the effect of denying veterans access to attorneys when they made claims under veterans benefits statutes. The Court was closely attentive to the Mathews formulation, and relied on statistics about the usual outcome of veterans' claims to establish that their need for attorneys' assistance was not high. Most veterans prevailed; veterans' organizations were available to provide substitute representation that seemed effective; and in the few cases in which lawyers had appeared, presumably without fee, veterans were not notably more successful than the general run. Yet these statistics cloaked what several of the Justices regarded as a real need for lawyers` assistance in a smaller group of much more complex cases. This was a focus the attorneys for the veterans groups had not developed. Some of the Justices thought that in a well-developed case the Mathews inquiry might demonstrate that attorneys help was constitutionally required in that sub-group of cases; others would have decided that, like the element of orality, access to an attorney was a necessary element of the process "due," one that could never be denied. What was apparent to both groups of Justices (together, a majority of the Court) was that the Mathews inquiry in this case was distorted by the great number of "easy cases," for which the desired procedural change would make little difference.

It follows from the preceding discussion that one cannot expect to list the elements of "required procedures" under American law. In the case involving a ten-day suspension from public school, a chance to tell the school principal (someone other than the complaining teacher) one's own side of the story was sufficient. Suspension of welfare payments may still be held to require all the elements specified in Goldberg, and actual termination of those payments, somewhat more. Nonetheless, an analysis made by the late Judge Henry Friendly in his well-regarded article, "Some Kind of Hearing," generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:


An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.


Again, these are simply the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance, and not a list of procedures that will in fact be required.

Author
The original text of this article was written and submitted by Peter Strauss

Retrieved from "http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Due_process"

This page has been accessed 22809 times. This page was last modified 17:15, 6 Jan 2006 by LII Editor. Based on work by Thomas R. Bruce and Alexandra Laks and others. [1 watching user/s] Content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Page history | What links here | Related changes

Main Page | About Wex | Find:


Find


Browse
Definitions
Law about... articles
Main Page
Help
About
FAQ

This page
Printable version

Context
Page history
What links here
Related changes

Special pages
Categories
All pages
New pages
Wanted pages
Statistics
Bug reports
More...

Now all I need is the current email address of a few of my favorite TV and Radio Stations

English Radio

Company	Street	City	State	Zip	Phone
KAAMAM	PO Box 561307	Dallas	Texas	75356-1307	972-445-1700
KACQFM, KCYLAM	505 N Key Ave	Lampasas	Texas	76550-1850	512-556-6193
KACTFM, KACTAM	PO Box 524	Andrews	Texas	79714-0524	915-523-2845
KAEZFM	1616 S Kentucky St Bldg C-400	Amarillo	Texas	79102-2252	806-320-1057
KAFXFM, KSFAAM, KTBQFM, KYKSFM	1216 S 1st St	Lufkin	Texas	75901-4716	936-639-4455
KAGCAM	PO Box 4066	Bryan	Texas	77805-4066	979-779-1510
KAGGFM, KNFXFM, KKYSFM	PO Box 4132	Bryan	Texas	77805-4132	979-846-5597
KAIQFM, KZZNAM	PO Box 510	Littlefield	Texas	79339-0510	806-385-4474
KAJAFM, KQXTFM, KSJLAM, KTKRAM, KXXMFM, WOAIAM, KSJLFM	6222 W IH 10	San Antonio	Texas	78201-2024	210-736-9700
KAMLAM	1568 County Road 345	Kenedy	Texas	78119-5229	830-583-2990
KAMXFM, KJCEAM, KKMJFM, KQBTFM	4301 Westbank Dr Fl 301	Austin	Texas	78746-4400	512-327-9595
KANDAM	PO Box 2298	Corsicana	Texas	75151-2298	903-874-7421
KANIAM	PO Box 350	Wharton	Texas	77488-0350	979-532-3800
KARXFM, KPURFM, KQIZFM, KZRKAM, KPURAM, KZRKFM	301 S Polk St Ste 100	Amarillo	Texas	79101-1404	806-342-5200
KASEFM, KFMKFM, KHFIFM, KVETFM, KPEZFM	3601 S Congress Ave Bldg F	Austin	Texas	78704-7213	512-684-7300
KASZFM	609 E Main St	Gatesville	Texas	76528-1318	254-865-2204
KATPFM, KMMLFM, KMXJFM, KIXZAM, KPRFFM	6214 W 34th Ave	Amarillo	Texas	79109-4006	806-355-9777
KATXFM, KEASAM	611 W Commerce St	Eastland	Texas	76448-2603	254-629-2621
KAZEFM	212 Grande Blvd Ste C120	Tyler	Texas	75703-4230	903-581-5259
KBALFM, KBALAM	PO Box 126	San Saba	Texas	76877-0126	915-372-5225
KBATFM, KGEEFM, KMNDAM, KNFMFM, KODMFM, KRILAM	PO Box 7906	Midland	Texas	79708-7906	915-563-5636
KBBWAM	1019 Washington Ave	Waco	Texas	76701-1256	254-757-1010
KBCTFM	4701 W Waco Dr	Waco	Texas	76710-7015	254-388-5945
KBECAM	711 Ferris Ave	Waxahachie	Texas	75165-2589	972-923-1390
KBENAM	PO Box 435	Carrizo Springs	Texas	78834-6435	830-876-2210
KBEYFM	PO Box 8715	Horseshoe Bay	Texas	78657-8715	830-598-2840
KBFMFM, KTEXFM	901 E Pike Blvd	Weslaco	Texas	78596-4937	866-973-1041
KBGEAM, KISXFM, KKTXFM, KNUEFM, KTYLFM	3810 Brookside Dr	Tyler	Texas	75701-9420	903-581-0606
KBGOFM, KWTXAM, KWTXFM, WACOFM	PO Box 21088	Waco	Texas	76702-1088	254-776-3900
KBHTFM	PO Box 130	Grapeland	Texas	75844-0130	936-544-9350
KBISAM	8828 N Stemmons Fwy Ste 106	Dallas	Texas	75247-3720	214-634-7780
KBKHFM	PO Box 688	Shamrock	Texas	79079-0688	806-256-3838
KBLZFM	212 Grande Blvd Ste C120	Tyler	Texas	75703-4230	903-581-5259
KBNUFM, KBLTFM	935 E Main St	Uvalde	Texas	78801-4855	830-278-3693
KBOCFM	PO Box 156	Bridgeport	Texas	76426-0156	940-683-5486
KBRAFM	PO Box 148	Freer	Texas	78357-0148	361-394-6959
KBRQFM	PO Box 21088	Waco	Texas	76702-1088	254-776-3900
KBSOFM	PO Box 5278	Corpus Christi	Texas	78465-5278	361-289-0999
KBSTFM, KBTSFM, KBSTAM	PO Box 1632	Big Spring	Texas	79721-1632	915-267-6391
KBUCFM	215 N Main St	Pleasanton	Texas	78064-3517	830-281-5282
KBUSFM, KOYNFM, KPLTFM, KPLTAM	PO Box 1038	Paris	Texas	75461-1038	903-785-1068
KBWDAM, KOXEFM	PO Box 280	Brownwood	Texas	76804-0280	915-646-3505
KBXXFM	PO Box 56188	Houston	Texas	77256-6188	713-623-2108
KBYGAM	2801 Wasson Rd	Big Spring	Texas	79720-6412	915-263-5294
KCAFAM	PO Box 12345	Dallas	Texas	75225-0345	214-369-2882
KCCGFM, KKPNFM, KSIXAM, KPUSFM	PO Box TV10	Corpus Christi	Texas	78403-3199	361-883-7070
KCDDFM, KFQXFM, KHXSFM, KBCYFM	2525 S Danville Dr	Abilene	Texas	79605-6414	915-793-9700
KCHLAM	PO Box 200880	San Antonio	Texas	78220-0880	210-333-0050
KCHNAM	1608 W Sam Houston Pwky N	Houston	Texas	77043-3115	713-490-2538
KCKLFM, KLVQAM	PO Box 489	Malakoff	Texas	75148-0489	903-489-1238
KCLEAM, KTFWFM, KTFWAM	7037 - A - Singer	Waco	Texas		254-776-1033
KCLWAM	PO Box 631	Hamilton	Texas	76531-0631	254-386-8804
KCMCAM, KFYXFM, KTFSAM, KTXOFM	615 Olive St	Texarkana	Texas	75501-5512	903-793-4671
KCOHAM	5011 Almeda Rd	Houston	Texas	77004-5996	713-522-1001
KCOLFM, KIOCFM, KKMYFM, KLVIAM, KYKRFM	PO Box 5488	Beaumont	Texas	77726-5488	409-896-5555
KCOMAM	PO Box 9	Comanche	Texas	76442-0009	915-356-2558
KCRSAM, KCRSFM, KFZXFM, KMRKFM, KCHXFM	1330 E 8th St Ste 207	Odessa	Texas	79761-4731	915-563-9102
KCSEFM	PO Box 791	San Angelo	Texas	76902-0791	915-658-2966
KCTAAM	1602 S Brownlee Blvd	Corpus Christi	Texas	78404-3134	361-882-7711
KCTIAM	615 St. Paul St	Gonzales	Texas	78629-3551	830-672-3631
KCTXAM	1511 Avenue F NW	Childress	Texas	79201-3417	940-937-6316
KCTXFM	1511 Avenue F NW	Childress	Texas	79201-3417	940-937-6316
KCUBFM	PO Box 1137	Stephenville	Texas	76401-0011	254-968-5282
KCULFM, KCULAM	PO Box AA	Marshall	Texas	75671-0890	903-935-2500
KCWMAM	PO Box 447	Hondo	Texas	78861-0447	830-741-5296
KDAVAM	1714 Buddy Holly Ave	Lubbock	Texas	79401-5135	806-744-5859
KDBNFM, KTCKAM, KTDKFM, KTBKAM	3500 Maple Ave Ste 1310	Dallas	Texas	75219-3931	214-526-7400
KDCDFM, KMDXFM	3434 Sherwood Way	San Angelo	Texas	76901-3531	915-947-0899
KDDDFM, KDDDAM	PO Box 555	Dumas	Texas	79029-0555	806-935-4141
KDGEFM, KZPSFM, KFXRAM	15851 Dallas Pkwy Ste 1200	Addison	Texas	75001-3306	972-770-7777
KDHNAM	704 W Cleveland St	Dimmitt	Texas	79027-3108	806-647-4161
KDOKFM, KEESAM, KGLDAM, KTBBAM, KYZSAM	PO Box 92	Tyler	Texas	75710-0092	903-593-2519
KDVEFM, KXALFM	3004 W Marshall Ave	Longview	Texas	75604-5027	903-759-6431
KEANFM, KEYJFM, KHYSFM, KSLIAM, KULLFM, KEANAM	PO Box 3098	Abilene	Texas	79604-3098	915-676-7711
KEBEAM, KOOIFM	PO Box 1648	Jacksonville	Texas	75766-1648	903-939-1065
KEEPFM, KFANFM, KNAFAM	PO Box 311	Fredericksburg	Texas	78624-0311	830-997-2197
KEFHFM	PO Box 370	Clarendon	Texas	79226-0370	806-874-2296
KEGLFM, KDMXFM	14001 Dallas Pkwy Ste 1210	Dallas	Texas	75240-1358	972-991-1029
KELIFM, KGKLAM	PO Box 1878	San Angelo	Texas	76902-1878	915-655-7161
KENSAM	PO Box TV5	San Antonio	Texas	78299-0500	210-366-5000
KERVAM, KMBLAM, KOOKFM, KRVLFM	2125 Sidney Baker St	Kerrville	Texas	78028-2551	830-896-1230
KESNFM, KMKIAM, KSCSFM, KMEOFM, WBAPAM	2221 E Lamar Blvd Ste 300	Arlington	Texas	76006-7419	817-695-1820
KESOFM, KZSPFM	1004 Padre Blvd Fl 4	South Padre Island	Texas	78597-6626	956-761-2270
KETXFM, KETXAM	3274 Radio Rd	Livingston	Texas	77351-9770	936-327-8916
KEWLFM, KGAPFM, KKTKAM, KLMZFM, KCARAM	1323 College Dr	Texarkana	Texas	75503-3531	903-793-1109
KEYEFM, KEYEAM	PO Box 630	Perryton	Texas	79070-0630	806-435-5458
KEYIFM	8309 N IH 35	Austin	Texas	78753-5720	512-832-4000
KEYSAM, KKBAFM, KZFMFM	PO Box 9757	Corpus Christi	Texas	78469-9757	361-883-3516
KFCCAM	10614 Rockley Rd	Houston	Texas	77099-3514	281-575-1270
KFITAM	PO Box 160158	Austin	Texas	78716-0158	512-328-8400
KFLPFM, KFLPAM	PO Box 658	Floydada	Texas	79235-0658	806-983-5704
KFLZFM	PO Box 5278	Corpus Christi	Texas	78465-5278	361-289-0999
KFMXFM, KFYOAM, KKAMAM, KKCLFM, KZIIFM	4413 82nd St Ste 300	Lubbock	Texas	79424-3395	806-798-7078
KFROAM, KFROFM, KYKXFM	PO Box 5818	Longview	Texas	75608-5818	903-663-3700
KFRQFM, KVLYFM, KVPAFM	801 N Jackson Rd	McAllen	Texas	78501-9306	956-661-6000
KFSTFM, KFSTAM	RR 1 Box 165	Ft. Stockton	Texas	79735-9801	915-336-2228
KFTXFM	1520 S Port Ave	Corpus Christi	Texas	78405-2106	361-883-5987
KFWRFM	PO Box 638	Mineral Wells	Texas	76068-0638	817-594-9509
KFYZFM, KFYNAM	PO Box 248	Bonham	Texas	75418-0248	903-583-3151
KGAFAM	PO Box 368	Gainesville	Texas	76241-0368	940-665-5546
KGASFM, KGASAM	215 S Market St	Carthage	Texas	75633-2623	903-693-6668
KGGRAM	5787 S Hampton Rd Ste 285	Dallas	Texas	75232-2290	972-572-5447
KGKLFM	PO Box 1878	San Angelo	Texas	76902-1878	915-655-7161
KGNBAM, KNBTFM	1540 Loop 337	New Braunfels	Texas	78130-3352	830-625-7311
KGNCFM, KGNCAM	PO Box 710	Amarillo	Texas	79105-0710	806-355-9801
KGOLAM	5821 Southwest Fwy Ste 600	Houston	Texas	77057-7532	713-349-9880
KGROAM, KOMXFM	PO Box 1779	Pampa	Texas	79066-1779	806-669-6809
KGSRFM, KROXFM, KXMGFM	8309 N IH 35	Austin	Texas	78753-5720	512-832-4000
KGULFM, KZAMFM	102 Jason St Ste 1	Victoria	Texas	77901-2628	361-572-0105
KGVLAM, KIKTFM	PO Box 1015	Greenville	Texas	75403-1015	903-450-1400
KHBRAM	PO Box 569	Hillsboro	Texas	76645-0569	254-582-3431
KHEYAM, KHEYFM, KPRRFM, KTSMAM, KTSMFM, XEPRFM	4045 N Mesa St	El Paso	Texas	79902-1526	915-351-5400
KHJZFM, KILTFM	24 E Greenway Plz Ste 1900	Houston	Texas	77046-2428	713-881-5100
KHKSFM	PO Box 106	Dallas	Texas	75221-0106	214-891-3400
KHKXFM	PO Box 9400	Midland	Texas	79708-9400	915-520-9912
KHLBFM, KHLBAM	PO Box 639	Marble Falls	Texas	78654-0639	830-693-5551
KHMXFM, KKRWFM, KODAFM, KTBZFM, KLOLFM	3050 Post Oak Blvd Ste 1200	Houston	Texas	77056-6570	713-830-8000
KHPTFM, KKBQFM, KLDEFM, KTHTFM	1990 Post Oak Blvd Ste 2300	Houston	Texas	77056-3847	713-961-0093
KHVLAM, KSAMFM	PO Box 330	Huntsville	Texas	77342-0330	936-295-2651
KHVNAM	5787 S Hampton Rd Ste 285	Dallas	Texas	75232-2290	972-572-5447
KHYIFM	PO Box 940670	Plano	Texas	75094-0670	972-633-0953
KIIZFM, KLFXFM	PO Box 2469	Harker Heights	Texas	76548-0469	254-699-5000
KIJNFM, KIJNAM	PO Box 458	Farwell	Texas	79325-0458	806-481-3318
KIKRAM, KQHNAM, KQXYFM, KTCXFM, KSTBFM, KAYDFM	755 S 11th St Ste 102	Beaumont	Texas	77701-3723	409-833-9421
KIKZAM, KSEMFM	105 NW 11th St	Seminole	Texas	79360-3301	915-758-5878
KILTAM, KIKKAM	24 E Greenway Plz Ste 1900	Houston	Texas	77046-2428	713-881-5100
KIMPAM, KSCNFM, KALKFM	PO Box 990	Mt. Pleasant	Texas	75456-0990	903-572-8726
KINLFM	PO Box 1123	Eagle Pass	Texas	78853-1123	830-773-9247
KIUNAM, KPTXFM	PO Box 469	Pecos	Texas	79772-0469	915-445-2497
KIVYFM, KIVYAM	102 S 5th St	Crockett	Texas	75835-2037	936-544-2171
KIXCFM	PO Box 29	Quanah	Texas	79252-0029	940-663-6363
KIXKFM	2020 Bill Owens Pkwy Ste 200	Longview	Texas	75604-6213	903-759-1061
KIXLAM	11615 Angus Rd Ste 120B	Austin	Texas	78759-4065	512-372-9700
KIXSFM, KLUBFM, KQVTFM	PO Box 3325	Victoria	Texas	77903-3325	361-573-0777
KIXYFM, KKSAAM, KWFRFM	PO Box 2191	San Angelo	Texas	76902-2191	915-949-2112
KJAKFM	PO Box 6490	Lubbock	Texas	79493-6490	806-745-6677
KJASFM	765 Hemphill St	Jasper	Texas	75951-3104	409-384-2626
KJCSFM	910 North St	Nacogdoches	Texas	75961-4430	936-559-8800
KJIMAM	4367 Woodlawn Rd	Denison	Texas	75021-8037	903-893-1197
KJSAAM	PO Box 638	Mineral Wells	Texas	76068-0638	817-594-9509
KJTXFM	625 Kellyville Cut Off	Jefferson	Texas	75657-3526	903-665-1150
KKCNFM	PO Box 791	San Angelo	Texas	76902-0791	915-658-2966
KKDAAM, KKDAFM, KRNBFM	PO Box 530860	Grand Prairie	Texas	75053-0860	972-263-9911
KKJWFM	24 Smith Rd Ste 650	Midland	Texas	79705-4415	915-620-8282
KKKKFM	PO Box 60375	Midland	Texas	79711-0375	915-563-2266
KKUSFM	621 Chase Dr	Tyler	Texas	75701-9431	903-534-5133
KKYXAM	8122 Datapoint Dr Ste 500	San Antonio	Texas	78229-3296	210-615-5400
KLAKFM	101 E Main St Ste 255	Denison	Texas	75021-3088	903-463-6800
KLAQFM, KRODAM, KSIIFM	4180 N Mesa St	El Paso	Texas	79902-1420	915-544-8864
KLBJFM, KLBJAM	8309 N IH 35	Austin	Texas	78753-5771	512-832-4000
KLBOAM	PO Box 270	Monahans	Texas	79756-0270	915-943-2588
KLGDFM	PO Box 320	Hale Center	Texas	79041-0320	806-839-1183
KLIFAM	3500 Maple Ave Ste 1600	Dallas	Texas	75219-3945	214-526-2400
KLJTFM	PO Box 1648	Jacksonville	Texas	75766-1648	903-939-1065
KLNTAM, KQURFM	PO Box 814	Laredo	Texas	78042-0814	956-725-1491
KLRKFM, KRZXAM, KRZIAM	PO Box 8093	Waco	Texas	76714-8093	254-772-0930
KLSRFM	PO Box 400	Memphis	Texas	79245-0400	806-259-3511
KLTDFM, KOOCFM, KSSMFM, KTEMAM, KUSJFM	608 Moody Ln	Temple	Texas	76504-2952	254-773-5252
KLTGFM, KOULFM	PO Box 898	Corpus Christi	Texas	78403-0898	361-883-1600
KLTYFM	6400 N Belt Line Rd Ste 120	Irving	Texas	75063-6065	972-870-9949
KLUPAM	9601 McAllister Fwy Ste 1200	San Antonio	Texas	78216-4695	210-344-8481
KLURFM, KOLIFM, KQXCFM, KYYIFM	4302 Call Field Rd	Wichita Falls	Texas	76308-2534	940-691-2311
KLVTAM	PO Box 967	Levelland	Texas	79336-0967	806-894-3134
KLVTFM	PO Box 967	Levelland	Texas	79336-0967	806-894-3134
KLXKFM, KROOAM	PO Box 711	Breckenridge	Texas	76424-0711	254-559-6543
KMADFM, KMKTFM	101 E Main St Ste 255	Denison	Texas	75021-3011	903-463-6800
KMBVFM, KULFFM, KLTRFM, KEZBFM	306 E Main St	Brenham	Texas	77833-3706	979-836-9411
KMCMFM	4101 E 42nd St Ste J2	Odessa	Texas	79762-7245	915-550-9702
KMHTAM, KZEYFM	2323 Jefferson Ave	Marshall	Texas	75670-1281	903-923-8000
KMICAM	3050 Post Oak Blvd Ste 220	Houston	Texas		713-552-1590
KMILAM	PO Box 832	Cameron	Texas	76520-0832	254-697-6633
KMJQFM	PO Box 22900	Houston	Texas	77227-2900	713-623-2108
KMKSFM	PO Box 789	Bay City	Texas	77404-0789	979-244-4242
KMMXFM, KLLLFM, KONEFM	33 Briercroft Office Park	Lubbock	Texas	79412-3020	806-762-3000
KMOOFM	PO Box 628	Mineola	Texas	75773-0628	903-569-3823
KMVLFM, KMVLAM	102 W Main St	Madisonville	Texas	77864-1905	936-348-9200
KMXRFM, KNCNFM, KRYSFM, KKTXAM	501 Tupper Ln	Corpus Christi	Texas	78417-9736	361-289-0111
KNALAM, KRNXAM, KEPGFM, KITEFM, KVICFM	PO Box 3487	Victoria	Texas	77903-3487	361-576-6111
KNBOAM	PO Box 848	New Boston	Texas	75570-0848	903-628-2561
KNCEFM	1740 N 1st St	Abilene	Texas	79603-7401	915-673-5289
KNDAFM	2001 Saratoga Blvd Ste B	Corpus Christi	Texas	78417-3404	361-814-1030
KNDEFM, KZNEAM, KWBCAM, WTAWAM	PO Box 3248	Bryan	Texas	77805-3248	979-846-1150
KNELFM, KNELAM	PO Box 630	Brady	Texas	76825-0630	915-597-2119
KNESFM	PO Box 347	Fairfield	Texas	75840-0006	903-389-5637
KNETAM, KYYKFM	PO Box 3649	Palestine	Texas	75802-3649	903-729-6077
KNNKFM	PO Box 1635	Hereford	Texas	79045-1635	806-363-1005
KNRGFM, KULMFM	PO Box 111	Columbus	Texas	78934-0111	979-732-5766
KNTXAM	PO Box 1080	Bowie	Texas	76230-1080	940-872-2288
KOESFM	209 S Danville Dr Ste B105	Abilene	Texas	79605-1451	915-691-5400
KOFRFM	PO Box 64299	Lubbock	Texas	79464-4299	806-698-0759
KOGTAM	PO Box 1667	Orange	Texas	77631-1667	409-883-4381
KONOFM, KCYYFM, KCJZFM, KONOAM	8122 Datapoint Dr Ste 500	San Antonio	Texas	78229-3271	210-615-5400
KOPYAM	PO Box 731	Alice	Texas	78333-0731	361-664-1884
KORAFM, KXCSFM, KZTRFM	PO Box 3069	Bryan	Texas	77805-3069	979-776-1240
KORQFM, KNCEFM	1740 N 1st St	Abilene	Texas	79603-7401	915-673-5289
KPANFM, KPANAM	PO Box 1757	Hereford	Texas	79045-1757	806-364-1860
KPASFM	PO Box 371010	El Paso	Texas	79937-1010	915-851-3382
KPBLAM	RR 5 Box 2095	Hemphill	Texas	75948-9752	409-787-4393
KPETAM	PO Box 1188	Lamesa	Texas	79331-1188	806-872-6511
KPIRAM	PO Box 1558	Granbury	Texas	76048-8558	817-579-7850
KPJCAM	2400 Clarksville St	Paris	Texas	75460-6258	903-782-0794
KPLXFM	3500 Maple Ave Ste 1600	Dallas	Texas	75219-3946	214-526-2400
KPRCAM, KBMEAM	510 Lovett Blvd	Houston	Texas	77006-4021	713-526-5874
KPSMFM	PO Box 1549	Brownwood	Texas	76804-1549	915-646-5993
KPSOFM	304 E Rice St	Falfurrias	Texas	78355-3624	361-325-2112
KPXIFM, KSKYAM, KWRDFM	4144 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 266	Dallas	Texas		972-870-9949
KPYKAM	PO Box 157	Terrell	Texas	75160-8022	972-524-5795
KQBBFM, KQSIFM, KDETAM	PO Box 930	Center	Texas	75935-0930	936-598-3304
KQBRFM	4413 82nd St Ste 300	Lubbock	Texas	79424-3366	806-798-7078
KQRXFM	PO Box 9400	Midland	Texas	79708-9400	915-520-9912
KQTYAM	P.O. Box 165	Borger	Texas	79008-0165	806-273-7533
KRBAAM, KUEZFM, KYBIFM	PO Box 1345	Lufkin	Texas	75902-1345	936-634-6661
KRBLFM	916 Main St Ste 617	Lubbock	Texas	79401-3403	806-749-1057
KRCMAM, KOLEAM	PO Box 22257	Beaumont	Texas	77720-2257	409-832-9250
KRDFFM	PO Box 307	Spearman	Texas	79081-0307	806-659-2529
KREHAM	5821 Southwest Fwy Ste 610	Houston	Texas	77057-7532	713-917-0050
KRFEAM	6602 Martin Luther King Blvd	Lubbock	Texas		806-745-1197
KRIOFM, KVWGAM	PO Box 1410	Pearsall	Texas	78061-1410	830-334-8900
KRLDAM	1080 Ballpark Way	Arlington	Texas	76011-5164	817-543-5400
KRMYAM	PO Box 488	Killeen	Texas	76540-0488	254-628-7070
KRNHFM	1216 Sidney Baker St S Ste B	Kerrville	Texas	78028-6131	830-896-4990
KROLFM, KELPAM	6900 Commerce Ave	El Paso	Texas	79915-1102	915-779-0016
KRQXAM, KYCXFM	PO Box 1590	Mexia	Texas	76667-1590	254-562-5328
KRRGFM	902 E Calton Rd	Laredo	Texas	78041-6359	956-724-9800
KRTSFM	4409 Montrose Blvd	Houston	Texas	77006-5825	713-921-5787
KRUNAM	PO Box 230	Ballinger	Texas	76821-0230	915-365-5500
KRVFFM, KRVAFM	750 N St. Paul St	Dallas	Texas	75201-7105	214-855-0002
KRWPFM	2700 Post Oak Blvd Ste 2300	Houston	Texas	77056-5715	713-300-3500
KRXBFM	PO Box 1664	Beeville	Texas	78104-1664	361-358-4941
KRXTFM	PO Box 1560	Rockdale	Texas	76567-1560	512-446-6985
KSCHFM	PO Box 990	Mt. Pleasant	Texas	75456-0990	903-572-8726
KSETAM	PO Box 455	Silsbee	Texas	77656-0455	409-385-2883
KSEVAM	11451 Katy Fwy Ste 215	Houston	Texas	77079-2010	281-588-4800
KSEYFM	PO Box 471	Seymour	Texas	76380-0471	940-889-2637
KSHNFM	2099 Sam Houston St	Liberty	Texas	77575-4817	409-336-5793
KSLRAM	9601 McAllister Fwy Ste 1200	San Antonio	Texas	78216-4686	210-344-8481
KSNYFM, KSNYAM	PO Box 1008	Snyder	Texas	79550-1008	915-573-9322
KSOCFM, KBFBFM	13331 Preston Rd Ste 1180	Dallas	Texas	75240-1134	972-331-5400
KSOXAM, KURVAM	2921 N US Hwy 281	Edinburg	Texas	78541-7128	956-383-2777
KSSTAM	PO Box 284	Sulphur Springs	Texas	75483-0284	903-885-3111
KSTVFM, KYOXFM	PO Box 289	Stephenville	Texas	76401-0004	254-968-2141
KSWAAM, KWKQFM	PO Box 1507	Graham	Texas	76450-7507	940-549-1330
KTCJFM	PO Box 1111	Centerville	Texas	75833-1111	903-536-3132
KTDRFM	307 E 8th St	Del Rio	Texas	78840-3823	830-775-6291
KTEKAM, KKHTAM	6161 Savoy Dr Ste 1200	Houston	Texas	77036-3363	713-260-3600
KTKOFM	PO Box 700	Beeville	Texas	78104-0700	361-358-1490
KTLUAM, KWRWFM	PO Box 475	Rusk	Texas	75785-0475	903-683-2258
KTNDFM, KWNXAM	1 Paseo Del Prado Bldg 102	Edinburg	Texas		956-992-8895
KTONAM	PO Box 1387	Belton	Texas	76513-5387	254-939-9377
KTOYFM	PO Box 5793	Texarkana	Texas	75505-5793	903-794-5869
KTRHAM	510 Lovett Blvd	Houston	Texas	77006-4098	713-526-5874
KTSAAM, KTFMFM	4050 Eisenhauer Rd	San Antonio	Texas	78218-3409	210-599-5500
KTTXFM, KWHIAM	PO Box 1280	Brenham	Texas	77834-1280	979-836-3655
KTXJAM, KWYXFM	PO Box 2008	Jasper	Texas	75951-8008	409-384-6801
KTXNFM	302 Sam Houston Dr	Victoria	Texas	77901-4771	361-573-2121
KULPAM	PO Box 390	El Campo	Texas	77437-0390	979-543-3303
KUSTFM, KVSTFM	1212 S Frazier St	Conroe	Texas	77301-4407	936-788-1035
KVCIAM	1350 S Trade Days Blvd Ste C	Canton	Texas	75103-2812	903-567-5566
KVETAM	3601 S Congress Ave Bldg F	Austin	Texas	78704-7213	512-684-7300
KVJMFM	PO Box 3989	Bryan	Texas	77805-3989	979-779-3337
KVLFAM	PO Box 779	Alpine	Texas	79831-0779	915-837-2144
KVMCAM, KAUMFM	PO Box 990	Colorado City	Texas	79512-0990	915-728-5224
KVOPAM, KREWAM, KKYNFM	PO Box 1420	Plainview	Texas	79073-1420	806-296-2771
KVOUFM, KVOUAM	PO Box 758	Uvalde	Texas	78802-0758	830-278-2555
KVRPFM, KVRPAM	PO Box 1118	Haskell	Texas	79521-1118	940-864-8505
KVWCFM, KVWCAM	PO Box 1419	Vernon	Texas	76385-1419	940-552-6221
KWEDAM	609 E Court St	Seguin	Texas	78155-5713	830-379-2234
KWELAM	1110 E Scharbauer Dr	Midland	Texas	79705-7740	915-620-9393
KWFSAM, KWFSFM, KTLTFM, KNINFM	PO Box 787	Wichita Falls	Texas	76307-0787	940-763-1111
KWKCAM, KZQQAM	1749 N 2nd St	Abilene	Texas	79603-7409	915-673-1455
KWMCAM	903 E Cortinas St	Del Rio	Texas	78840-6756	830-775-3544
KWNSFM	PO Box 54	Winnsboro	Texas	75494-0054	903-342-3501
KWRDAM, KZEYAM	PO Box 4248	Tyler	Texas	75712-4248	903-593-1744
KWUDAM	105 East Wheat	Woodville	Texas		409 283 2777
KWWJAM	PO Box 419	Baytown	Texas	77522-0419	281-837-8777
KXEZFM, KKLFAM	103B West Main Street	Allen	Texas		972-396-1640
KXGLFM	1616 S Kentucky St Ste 215	Amarillo	Texas	79102-2252	806-351-2345
KXITFM, KXITAM	PO Box 1359	Dalhart	Texas	79022-1359	806-249-4747
KXOXFM, KXOXAM	PO Box 570	Sweetwater	Texas	79556-0570	915-236-6655
KYMIFM	1919 County Road M Unit 15	Lamesa	Texas	79331-7939	806-872-6553
KYNGFM, KRBVFM	7901 John W Carpenter Fwy	Dallas	Texas	75247-4832	214-630-3011
KYOKAM	300 Bryant Rd	Conroe	Texas	77303-1749	936-441-1140
KYXXFM, KHOSFM	HC 65 Box 50	Sonora	Texas	76950-9802	915-387-3553
KZEEAM	PO Box 54803	Hurst	Texas	76054-4803	817-849-1971
KZEPFM	427 9th St	San Antonio	Texas	78215-1595	210-226-6444
KZRBFM	PO Box 1055	New Boston	Texas	75570-1055	903-547-3171
KZRCFM	PO Box 547	Bay City	Texas	77404-0547	979-323-7771
KZZBAM	2531 Calder St	Beaumont	Texas	77702-1915	409-833-0990
WRRFM	PO Box 159001	Dallas	Texas	75315-9001	214-670-8888

Spanish Radio

Company	Street	City	State	Zip	Phone
KAHZAM	2501 Oak Lawn Ave Ste 690	Dallas	Texas	75219-4057	214-599-9788
KAMAAM, KBNAAM, KBNAFM	2211 E Missouri Ave Ste 300	El Paso	Texas	79903-3837	915-544-9797
KAMZFM	1220 Broadway St Ste 1035	Lubbock	Texas	79401-3202	806-741-0701
KBDRFM, KILMFM	1 Paseo Del Prado Bldg 102	Edinburg	Texas		956-992-8895
KBORAM, KBORFM, KTJNFM	PO Box 3407	Brownsville	Texas	78523-3407	956-544-1600
KBRZAM	912 Curtis Ave	Pasadena	Texas	77502-2402	713-589-1460
KBZOAM	PO Box 600	Lubbock	Texas	79408-0600	806-763-6051
KCCTAM	PO Box 7619	Corpus Christi	Texas		361-887-6465
KCORAM, KCORFM, KROMFM, KXTNFM, KXTNAM	1777 NE Loop 410 Ste 400	San Antonio	Texas	78217-5217	210-821-6548
KCTMFM	102 KCTM Fm 103 Rd	Rio Grande City	Texas	78582-9670	956-487-8224
KDFTAM	3304 W Camp Wisdom Rd Ste 100	Dallas	Texas	75237-2556	972-572-1540
KDOSFM, KHCKAM, KESSFM, KESSAM, KHCKFM, KLNOFM	7700 John W Carpenter Fwy Fl 2	Dallas	Texas	75247-4829	214-525-0400
KEDAAM	510 S Flores St	San Antonio	Texas	78204-1217	210-226-5254
KEJSFM	PO Box 24	Lubbock	Texas	79408-0024	806-747-5951
KELGAM, KFONAM, KKLBFM, KTXZAM	7524 N Lamar Blvd Ste 200	Austin	Texas	78752-1346	512-453-1491
KFJZAM	PO Box 6158	Ft. Worth	Texas	76115-0158	817-923-8707
KFNIAM	2300 W Commerce St Ste 104	San Antonio	Texas	78207-3841	210-271-3277
KGBCAM	8 Pelican Is	Galveston	Texas	77554-2816	409-744-1540
KGBTFM, KGBTAM	200 S 10th St Ste 600	McAllen	Texas	78501-4869	956-631-5499
KGRWFM, KQFXFM, KTNZAM, KZIPAM	3639 Wolflin Ave	Amarillo	Texas	79102-2119	806-355-1044
KHHLFM, KXXSFM	12710 Research Blvd Ste 390	Austin	Texas	78759-4380	512-331-9191
KHMCFM	PO Box 407	Victoria	Texas	77902-0407	361-575-9533
KHOSAM	PO Box 523	Merkel	Texas	79536-0523	915-928-3060
KILEAM	10614 Rockley Rd	Houston	Texas	77099-3514	281-564-7064
KINEAM, KLMOFM, KMIQFM	PO Box 270547	Corpus Christi	Texas	78427-0547	361-289-8877
KINTFM, KSVEAM	5426 N Mesa St	El Paso	Texas	79912-5421	915-581-1126
KIRTAM	608 S 10th St	McAllen	Texas	78501-4952	956-686-2111
KJOJAM, KJOJFM, KQQKFM, KQUEAM, KIOXFM, KXGJFM, KEYHAM	11767 Katy Fwy Ste 1170	Houston	Texas	77079-1755	281-596-9610
KKHRFM	402 Cypress St Ste 709	Abilene	Texas	79601-5155	915-695-9898
KKUBAM	1722 Tahoka Rd	Brownfield	Texas	79316-4821	806-637-4531
KLARAM	PO Box 2517	Laredo	Texas	78044-2517	956-723-1300
KLATAM, KOBTFM, KLTNFM, KOVEFM, KQBUFM, KRTXAM	1415 North Loop W Ste 550	Houston	Texas	77008-1655	713-407-1415
KLFBAM	2700 Marshall St	Lubbock	Texas	79415-1100	806-765-8114
KLVLAM	8560 Howard Dr	Houston	Texas	77017-3800	713-665-8994
KMULAM	PO Box 486	Muleshoe	Texas	79347-0486	806-272-4273
KMXOAM	PO Box 523	Merkel	Texas	79536-0523	915-928-3060
KNAXAM	5787 S Hampton Rd Ste 340	Dallas	Texas	75232-6335	214-330-5866
KOPYFM	PO Box 731	Alice	Texas	78333-0731	361-664-1884
KQLMFM	PO Box 553	Odessa	Texas	79760-0553	915-333-1227
KQQQFM, KQQTFM, KQQAAM	1707 N Mays St	Round Rock	Texas	78664-2914	512-218-0111
KRVAAM	5307 E Mockingbird Ln Ste 500	Dallas	Texas	75206-5184	214-887-9107
KSABFM	501 Tupper Ln	Corpus Christi	Texas	78417-9736	361-289-0111
KSAHAM, KLEYFM	7800 W IH 10 Ste 330	San Antonio	Texas	78230-4768	210-340-1234
KSEYAM	700 8th St Ste 210	Wichita Falls	Texas	76301-6510	940-767-0011
KSJTFM	209 W Beauregard Ave	San Angelo	Texas	76903-5823	915-655-1717
KTAMAM	PO Box 3069	Bryan	Texas	77805-3069	979-776-1240
KTCYFM, KZMPFM, KZMPAM	5307 E Mockingbird Ln Ste 500	Dallas	Texas	75206-5118	214-887-9107
KTJKAM	PO Box 1489	Del Rio	Texas	78841-1489	830-775-9583
KTJMFM	11767 Katy Fwy Ste 1170	Houston	Texas	77079-1755	281-596-9610
KTMRAM	1302 N Shepherd Dr	Houston	Texas	77008-3752	713-868-5559
KTNOAM	5787 S Hampton Rd Ste 340	Dallas	Texas	75232-6335	214-330-5866
KUHDAM	419 Stadium Rd	Port Arthur	Texas	77642-1303	409-983-4256
KUKAFM	PO Box 589	Alice	Texas	78333-0589	361-668-6666
KVDLAM	404 Hughes St	Quanah	Texas	79252-3716	940-663-2773
KVIVAM	4900 Montana Ave	El Paso	Texas	79903-4815	915-565-2999
KVJYAM	3900 N 10th St Fl 7	McAllen	Texas	78501-1735	956-668-8585
KVLGAM	PO Box 609	La Grange	Texas	78945-0609	979-968-3173
KWOWFM	6401 Cobbs Dr	Waco	Texas	76710-2536	254-772-6104
KXEBAM	8828 N Stemmons Fwy Ste 106	Dallas	Texas	75247-3720	214-634-7780
KXOIAM	PO Box 2344	Odessa	Texas	79760-2344	915-333-5061
KXPLAM	2211 E Missouri Ave Ste E239	El Paso	Texas	79903-3807	915-587-8822
KXTMFM	PO Box 270547	Corpus Christi	Texas	78427-0547	361-289-8877
KXTQFM	PO Box 3757	Lubbock	Texas	79452-3757	806-745-3434
KXYLAM	PO Box 100	Brownwood	Texas	76804-0100	915-646-3535
KXYZAM	7322 Southwest Fwy Ste 1500	Houston	Texas	77074-2009	713-334-1320
KYNDAM	PO Box 19886	Houston	Texas	77224-9886	281-373-1520
KYSTAM	7322 Southwest Fwy Ste 500	Houston	Texas	77074-2084	713-779-9292
KYZZFM	424 N Van Buren St	San Angelo	Texas	76901-3147	915-658-2995
KZDCAM	2700 NE Loop 410 Ste 300	San Antonio	Texas	78217-4834	210-822-2771
XEEWFM, XEEWAM	PO Box 6145	Brownsville	Texas	78523-6145	868-812-2815
XEGHAM, XCAOFM, XAVOFM	PO Box 1685	Hidalgo	Texas	78557-1685	899-922-8162

English Television

Company	Street	City	State	Zip	Phone
K13VC	119 E 10th St	Austin	Texas	78701-2419	512-476-7777
K47DF	409 S Staples St	Corpus Christi	Texas	78401-3330	361-886-6100
K68DJ	409 S Staples St	Corpus Christi	Texas	78401-3330	361-886-6100
KABB	4335 NW Loop 410	San Antonio	Texas	78229-5168	210-366-1129
KABB	4335 NW Loop 410	San Antonio	Texas	78229-5168	210-366-1129
KACV	PO Box 447	Amarillo	Texas	79178-0001	806-371-5222
KAMC	7403 University Ave	Lubbock	Texas	79423-1424	806-745-2828
KAMR	1015 S Fillmore St	Amarillo	Texas	79101-3517	806-383-3321
KAMU	4244 TAMU	College Station	Texas	77843-0001	979-845-5611
KAUZ	PO Box 2130	Wichita Falls	Texas	76307-2130	940-322-6957
KAVU	3808 N Navarro St	Victoria	Texas	77901-2684	361-575-2500
KAZH	1044 Hercules Ave	Houston	Texas	77058-2722	281-759-5757
KBMT	PO Box 1550	Beaumont	Texas	77704-1550	409-833-7512
KBTX	4141 E 29th St	Bryan	Texas	77802-4399	979-846-7777
KCBD	5600 Avenue A	Lubbock	Texas	79404-4598	806-744-1414
KCEN	PO Box 6103	Temple	Texas	76503-6103	254-859-5481
KCIT	PO Box 1414	Amarillo	Texas	79105-1414	806-374-1414
KCPN	PO Box 1414	Amarillo	Texas	79105-1414	806-374-1414
KDAF	8001 John W Carpenter Fwy	Dallas	Texas	75247-4718	214-252-3458
KDBC	PO Box 1799	El Paso	Texas	79999-1799	(915) 496-4460
KDFI	400 N Griffin St	Dallas	Texas	75202-1905	214-720-3121
KDFW	400 N Griffin St	Dallas	Texas	75202-1996	214-720-3121
KDTN	3000 Harry Hines Blvd	Dallas	Texas	75201-1087	214-871-1390
KEDT	4455 S Padre Island Dr Suite 38	Corpus Christi	Texas	78411-5122	361-855-2213
KENS	PO Box TV5	San Antonio	Texas	78299-0500	210-366-5000
KERA	3000 Harry Hines Blvd	Dallas	Texas	75201-1098	214-871-1390
KETK	4300 Richmond Rd	Tyler	Texas	75703-1201	903-581-5656
KETX	3274 Radio Rd	Livingston	Texas	77351-9770	936-327-8916
KEYE	10700 Metric Blvd	Austin	Texas	78758-4523	512-835-0042
KFDA	PO Box 10	Amarillo	Texas	79105-0010	806-383-1010
KFDM	PO Box 7128	Beaumont	Texas	77726-7128	409-892-6622
KFDX	PO Box 4888	Wichita Falls	Texas	76308-0888	940-691-0003
KFOX	6004 N Mesa St	El Paso	Texas	79912-4606	915-834-2118
KFXK	701 N Access Rd	Longview	Texas	75602-4206	903-236-0051 x219
KGBT	9201 W Expressway 83	Harlingen	Texas	78552-6624	956-366-4444
KGLR	2124 15th St	Lubbock	Texas	79401-3719	806-747-4085
KGNS	PO Box 2829	Laredo	Texas	78044-2829	956-727-8888
KHOU	PO Box 11	Houston	Texas	77001-0011	713 521-4312
KHWB	7700 Westpark Dr	Houston	Texas	77063-6484	713-781-3939
KIDY	406 S Irving St	San Angelo	Texas	76903-6998	915-655-6006
KIII	PO Box 6669	Corpus Christi	Texas	78466-6669	361-986-8300
KJBO	PO Box 4888	Wichita Falls	Texas	76308-0888	940-691-0003
KJTL	PO Box 4888	Wichita Falls	Texas	76308-0888	940-691-0003
KJTV	PO Box 3757	Lubbock	Texas	79452-3757	806-745-3434
KLBK	7403 University Ave	Lubbock	Texas	79423-1424	806-745-2345
KLRN	PO Box 9	San Antonio	Texas	78291-0009	210-270-9000
KLRU	PO Box 7158	Austin	Texas	78713-7158	512-471-4811
KLST	PO Box 1941	San Angelo	Texas	76902-1941	915-949-8800
KLTJ	1050 Gemini ST	Houston	Texas	77058-2706	281-212-1022
KLTV	PO Box 957	Tyler	Texas	75710-0957	903-597-5588
KMBH	PO Box 2147	Harlingen	Texas	78551-2147	956-421-4111
KMID	PO Box 60230	Midland	Texas	79711-0230	915-563-2222
KMOL	PO Box 2641	San Antonio	Texas	78299	210-226-4444
KMOL	PO Box 2641	San Antonio	Texas	78299-2641	210-226-4444
KMPX	4201 Pool Rd	Colleyville	Texas	76034-5017	817-571-1229
KNCT	6400 W. Central Texas Expressway	Killeen	Texas	76540-1800	254-526-1176 x1343
KNVA	PO Box 684647	Austin	Texas	78768-4647	512-478-5400
KNWS	8440 Westpark Dr	Houston	Texas	77063-5899	713-974-5151 Ext 390
KOCV	201 W University Blvd	Odessa	Texas	79764-7105	915-335-6336
KOSA	1211 Whitaker Ave	Odessa	Texas	79763-3558	915-580-5672
KPEJ	1550 W Interstate 20	Odessa	Texas	79763-4904	915-580-0024
KPRC	PO Box 2222	Houston	Texas	77252-2222	713-778-4739
KPXB	256 N Sam Houston Pkwy E	Houston	Texas	77060-2008	281-820-4900
KPXD	3900 Barnett St	Ft. Worth	Texas	76103-1400	817-429-5555
KRBC	4510 S 14th St	Abilene	Texas	79605-4737	915-692-4242
KRGV	PO Box 5	Weslaco	Texas	78599-0005	956-968-5555 x239
KRIS	409 S Staples St	Corpus Christi	Texas	78401-3330	361-886-6147
KRIV	PO Box 22810	Houston	Texas	77227	713-479-2600
KRRT	4335 NW Loop 410	San Antonio	Texas	78229-5136	210-366-1129
KSAT	PO Box 2478	San Antonio	Texas	78298-2478	210-351-1200
KTAB	PO Box 5309	Abilene	Texas	79608-5309	915-695-2777
KTAQ	PO Box 8547	Greenville	Texas	75404-8547	903-455-8847
KTBC	119 E 10th St	Austin	Texas	78701-2495	512-476-7777
KTBU	7026 Old Katy Rd Suite 201	Houston	Texas	77024-2124	713-864-1999
KTEN	10 Haven Cir	Denison	Texas	75020-4042	903-465-5836
KTMV	PO Box 270547	Corpus Christi	Texas	78427-0547	361-289-8877
KTRK	PO Box 13	Houston	Texas	77001-0013	713-666-0713
KTSM	801 N Oregon St	El Paso	Texas	79902-4099	915-532-5421 x241
KTVT	5233 Bridge Street	Fort Worth	Texas	76103-1350	214-743-2100
KTXA	5233 Bridge Street	Fort Worth	Texas	76103	214-743-2100
KTXH	P.O. Box 22810	Houston	Texas	77227	713 479-2600
KTXS	4420 N Clack St	Abilene	Texas	79603-1157	915-677-2281
KTXT	PO Box 42161	Lubbock	Texas	79409-2161	806-742-2209
KUHT	4513 Cullen Blvd	Houston	Texas	77004-6599	713-748-8888
KUPT	PO Box 3757	Lubbock	Texas	79452-3757	806-745-3434
KVCT	3808 N Navarro St	Victoria	Texas	77901-2621	361-575-2500
KVEO	394 N Expressway	Brownsville	Texas	78521-2291	956-544-2323
KVIA	4140 Rio Bravo St	El Paso	Texas	79902-1084	915-496-7777 x1755
KVII	1 Broadcast Ctr	Amarillo	Texas	79101-4328	806-373-1787
KVTV	PO Box 2039	Laredo	Texas	78044-2039	956-723-2923
KVUE	PO Box 9927	Austin	Texas	78766-0927	512-459-6521
KWBU	PO Box 97296	Waco	Texas	76798-7296	254-710-3472
KWES	PO Box 60150	Midland	Texas	79711-0150	915-567-9999
KWKT	PO Box 2544	Waco	Texas	76702-2544	254-776-3844
KWTX	PO Box 2636	Waco	Texas	76702-2636	254-776-1330
KXAN	PO Box 490	Austin	Texas	78767-0490	512-476-3636
KXAS	PO Box 1780	Ft. Worth	Texas	76101-1780	817-654-6359
KXII	4201 Texoma Pkwy	Sherman	Texas	75090-1935	903-892-8123
KXXV	PO Box 2522	Waco	Texas	76702-2522	254-754-2525
KZJL	11767 Katy Fwy Ste 1170	Houston	Texas	77079-1755	281-493-2900
KZTV	PO Box 10	Corpus Christi	Texas	78403-0010	512-883-7070
WFAA	606 Young St	Dallas	Texas	75202-4810	214-977-7256

Spanish Television

Company	Street	City	State	Zip	Phone
K27EZ	3808 N Navarro St	Victoria	Texas	77901-2621	512-575-2500
KAJA	409 S Staples St	Corpus Christi	Texas	78401-3330	612-886-6101
KAKW	PO Box 2544	Waco	Texas	76702-2544	254-776-3844
KBGS	826 Spid	Corpus Christi	Texas	78416-2506	512-814-9830
KBZO	1220 Broadway St Ste 500	Lubbock	Texas	79401-3200	806-763-6051
KCOS	500 W University Ave	El Paso	Texas	79968-8900	915-747-6500
KFTH	2626 South Loop W	Houston	Texas	77054-2654	713-662-4545
KFWD	3000 Story Rd W Bldg D	Irving	Texas	75038-3529	972-255-5200
KGBS (formerly K11SF)	3307 Northland Dr Ste 175	Austin	Texas	78731-4970	512-451-6560
KHSX	1957 E Irving Blvd	Irving	Texas	75060-4555	972-579-4900
KINT	5426 N Mesa St	El Paso	Texas	79912-5421	915-581-1126
KKWB	801 N Oregon St	El Paso	Texas	79902-4099	915-532-6565
KLDO	1600 Water St Ste C5	Laredo	Texas	78040-5920	956-727-0027
KMAZ	10033 Carnegie Ave	El Paso	Texas	79925-1505	915-591-9595
KNVO	1800 S Main St Ste 890	McAllen	Texas	78503-5482	956-687-4848
KORO	PO Box 2667	Corpus Christi	Texas	78403-2667	361-883-2823
KTLM	3900 N 10th St Fl 7	McAllen	Texas	78501-1735	956-686-0040
KTMD	3903 Stoney Brook Dr	Houston	Texas	77063-6405	713-974-4848
KTRG	Highway 277 South	Del Rio	Texas	78840	817-222-1234
KTYO	10033 Carnegie Ave	El Paso	Texas	79925-1505	915-591-9595
KUPB	PO Box 61907	Midland	Texas	79711-1907	915-563-1826
KUVN	2323 Bryan St Ste 1900	Dallas	Texas	75201-2646	214-758-2335
KVAW-TV 16 (San Antonio DMA)	PO Box 788	Eagle Pass	Texas	78853-0788	210-757-0316
KVDA	6234 San Pedro Ave	San Antonio	Texas	78216-7208	210-340-8860
KWEX	411 E Durango Blvd	San Antonio	Texas	78204-1309	210-227-4141
KXLN	9440 Kirby Dr	Houston	Texas	77054-2521	713-662-4545
KXTQ	904 E Broadway St	Lubbock	Texas	79403-4917	806-747-2555
KXTX	3900 Harry Hines Blvd	Dallas	Texas	75219-3299	214-523-5879
Mas Musica Teve	3310 Keller Springs Rd Ste 105	Carrollton	Texas	75006-5900	972-503-6800
XHFOX-17	4909 N. McColl Rd	Mcallen	Texas	78504-2310	956-972-1117
XHRIO	500 E Beaumont Ave	McAllen	Texas	78501-8911	956-630-2222