Friday, June 30, 2006

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...

Thursday, June 08, 2006

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