Litigants in the Union Parish Police Jury lawsuit met in Monroe for a day-long trial July 30 and argued the merits of the lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Robbie James.

In dispute is the new districting plan for jurors submitted to, and approved by, the U.S. Justice Department after results of the 2000 census were announced.

Police Juror Willie Sensley (Ward 1), who is one of four initiators of the lawsuit against fellow jurors, says the plan the Police Jury submitted (Plan 10) is inconsistent with the demands of the United States Voting Rights Act. Sensley is seeking an injunction against this fall's Police Jury elections and wants current Police Jury districts redrawn.

Race was a prominent issue throughout the day.

Sensley, who is a plaintiff in the suit along with three other men from Ward's 1 and 2 (William Washington, Ralph Holley and David Wine), says Union Parish minorities lack opportunities equal to those of whites, especially in regards to employment and the ability to participate in elections. Sensley's attorney, Paul Hurd of Monroe, presented what he said were examples of racial discrimination in Union Parish, including instances against Sensley personally.

Attorneys for the Police Jury, however, said hypothetical plans submitted by Sensley amount to racial gerrymandering and are a "self-serving" attempt to benefit his sons. The attorneys presented evidence they said demonstrates blacks in Union Parish have opportunities equal to those of whites.

Metairie attorney Joe Bertrand, representing the Police Jury, said Sensley's claims are false.

 "This plan (which the Police Jury is currently using) can pass the muster of the Voting Rights Act," Bertrand said in his opening remarks.

On the stand, Sensley testified he believes a third minority district should be created to better reflect the minority population of Union Parish. Sensley says black individuals make up almost one-third of Union Parish's population. Sensley testified that a follow-up plan favored by him, which included a third minority district (Plan 10-A), was voted down by jurors. Under Plan 10, Sensley testified, Ward 1 will not receive any funds from a parishwide millage because it's in a municipality. Sensley said he wants the boundary lines of his Ward 1 district changed to ensure all votes count and his district gets road maintenance funds. Ward 1 stops at Farmerville's city limits under the current plan. Road maintenance funds are based on per capita, not the mileage of roads. Sensley said he learned at a national police jury convention that Union Parish was getting money for rural economic development.

He testified he later approached Juror John W. Buckley (Ward 4), chairman of the finance committee, about the matter.

"Mr. Buckley confirmed it, but no money was made available for my district," Sensley said. While cross-examining Sensley, Bertrand said Sensley's sons will benefit financially from the sale of alcohol if the hypothetical plans become official. Bertrand told the court that then-Police Jury President Sensley' sons made a presentation at a special meeting he called in September 2001 to discuss economic development. Bertrand said he had an audio tape in his possession proving the meeting took place after Sensley testified he was unable to recall it.

 Sensley was asked if liquor could be sold in his district under the hypothetical plan. Sensley testified it could not.

Plaintiffs and defendants later presented men identifying themselves as experts in the drawing of government districts.

Ronald Weber spoke on the plaintiffs' behalf.

Weber, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, is president of Campaign and Opinion Research Analysts, a government consulting firm. He testified a surplus of minority voters live in Ward 1 of the plan currently being used by the Police Jury.

Weber said the surplus guarantees a minority individual will always represent the district.

"But a candidate of either race could win under this hypothetical plan," Weber said.

An expert for the defense, however, disagreed with Weber's testimony.

Glenn Koepp, who works for the Louisiana State Senate, said the hypothetical plans constitute racial gerrymandering.

 "This plan is something the Police Jury couldn't have done even if they wanted to," Koepp testified.

Koepp said the hypothetical plan uses non-visible city limits and violates Louisiana state law because its precincts aren't created on visible features. Koepp disagreed with Webber when he said Ward 1 is "packed" with minority voters.

He said "packing" doesn't occur until over 80 percent of minorities live in any one district. Koepp testified this is not the case with Ward 1.

Testifying for the defense toward the end of the trial were current Police Jury President Danny Smith (Ward 2), Ward 9 Jury member Dwayne Hill (who also heads the Jury's Personnel Committee) and Police Jury employee Peggy Tate. All three said black people have equal employment opportunities within the Police Jury system.

Tate, who is black, testified under cross-examination by Hurd that Hill is her brother.

James is expected to issue his decision regarding the lawsuit sometime within the next two to three weeks.