Lawyer’s redistricting lawsuit claiming bias tossed by judge

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the way Arkansas lawmakers enacted a legislative redistricting plan in 2011, leading a Little Rock publisher who is the plaintiff to ask Monday for another chance at pursuing the case.

Julius J. Larry III, a retired civil-rights lawyer in Houston, Texas, and the publisher of the weekly Little Rock Sun newspaper, contended in the suit, filed in February, that the boundaries of the 1st Congressional District were set to intentionally dilute black voting strength, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In April, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker dismissed a second claim in which Larry contended the state violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Baker said Larry lacked standing to bring that claim.

But in an Aug. 3 order, Baker said Larry also lacks standing to bring his remaining vote-dilution claim, which she had agreed to convene a three-judge panel to decide. She said the other two judges who were to be part of the panel agreed.

Although Larry wanted to pursue the case as a class action that would represent the interests of everyone affected by the redistricting, Baker said he couldn’t do that, since he was acting as his own attorney.

Baker noted in her order that Larry complained that the 2011 plan diluted the voting strength of black voters in southeastern Arkansas as a result of “packing” a block of … voters into the 1st Congressional District with “like-minded white voters,” and by splitting Jefferson County between the 1st and 4th congressional districts. He also proposed a new map for the state’s four congressional districts in which the 1st District would encompass most of the southeastern quadrant of the state and include all of Jefferson and Pulaski counties.

Baker said Larry later tried to amend his complaint by adding several plaintiffs, drawing opposition on several grounds from the state and the Legislature. Baker denied the request to amend, saying among other things that the proposed amendment doesn’t comply with local rules and “is futile.”

On Monday, Larry filed a motion for reconsideration, asking that a special master be appointed to decide the case.