Lawsuit against UPPJ defeated Friday in federal court case
By Chris Butler
Staff Writer

U.S. District Judge Robbie James ruled Friday against a lawsuit challenging district lines for the Union Parish Police Jury drawn after the 2000 Census.

The ruling means another districting plan won’t replace the current one as Police Juror Willie Sensley (Ward 1) had hoped.

Sensley, who initiated the lawsuit against the Jury, was informed of the ruling by The Gazette Monday afternoon and had no initial comment. Sensley contacted The Gazette later in the afternoon, however, after speaking with his attorney, Paul Hurd of Monroe, and said he was disappointed with the ruling.

"I think we presented ourselves with a good case," Sensley said.

Sensley said his lawsuit was not of a political nature, as defendants had maintained. He said his lawsuit was instead made on behalf of his constituents in Ward 1.

"I ask everyone living in Ward 1 to speak out against this," Sensley added.

Sensley said he plans to appeal James’ decision.

Andy Shealy, legal advisor for the Jury, had a different perspective on the ruling.

"I’m very pleased and satisfied that the current plan has been upheld, and the election can move forward," Shealy said.

In his suit, Sensley, along with three other men from Wards 1 and 2 (William Washington, Ralph Holley and David Wine) accused the Jury of diluting the rights of minority voters in the Parish by denying them equal opportunities to participate and elect Police Jurors.

The lawsuit said Union Parish minorities lack opportunities equal to those of whites, especially in regard to employment and the ability to participate in elections. The lawsuit further stated that the Jury’s current districting plan (Plan 10) violates the United States’ Voting Rights Act. Sensley and the other three petitioners sought a permanent injunction against Plan 10.

Under Plan 10, Sensley testified, Ward 1 will not receive any funds from a parish wide millage because it’s in a municipality.

Sensley wanted the boundary lines of his Ward 1 district changed to — according to Sensley — ensure all votes counted and his district received road maintenance funds. Ward 1 stops at Farmerville’s city limits under Plan 10. Road maintenance funds are based on per capita basis, not the mileage of roads.

Union Parish has two districts represented by minorities. Sensley argued Union Parish is composed of almost 30 percent minorities and needs a third minority district.

At the July 30 trial, attorneys for the Police Jury said hypothetical plans submitted by Sensley amounted to racial gerrymandering and were a "self-serving" attempt to benefit his sons so they could sell alcohol.

Men identifying themselves as experts in the redrawing of government districts spoke on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.

James explained the reasoning for his ruling in a 15-page opinion.

"Plaintiffs cannot establish that the redistricting plan adopted by the Police Jury violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," James wrote.

James also said black individuals in Union Parish are not geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in three single-member districts.

"The Court further concludes that Plaintiffs cannot prove under the totality of circumstances that they do not possess the same opportunities to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice enjoyed by other voters," James added.

Union Parish Police Jury President Danny Smith (Ward 2), who said he had yet to read the ruling, said it vindicates the Police Jury.

"This ruling reinforces what we’ve been saying all along-that we have been doing things in a proper manner. Things tried to be proven against us that weren’t true," Smith said, referring to the plaintiffs’ portrayal of Union Parish as a place where black individuals do not have equal employment opportunities in proportion to whites.

"But I think this ruling speaks well for our parish, especially in terms of our ability to interact and work well together," Smith added.

Hurd was unavailable for comment despite a message left with his office seeking a reply. A fax from Hurd’s office, however, was sent to The Gazette Monday afternoon containing the following message:

"We are preparing to appeal this judgment at this time."

Smith expressed no enthusiasm for the possibility of the ruling being appealed.

"That will just tie up our parish longer and create more expense. I’m not excited about it, but it may be something we are forced into doing," Smith said.