Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects motion on Sabine Parish police‑jury term‑limits bill after heated testimony
Summary
Senate Bill 103, which would impose term limits on Sabine Parish police jurors and require a voter referendum, faced sustained opposition from the parish police jury and residents; the committee failed to advance the bill after an objection.
The House Municipal and Local Affairs Committee declined to report Senate Bill 103 favorably after extended public testimony and a roll‑call that produced one yes and 10 no votes.
Senate Bill 103 would limit service by members of the Sabine Parish Police Jury to no more than two and one‑half terms and require that the voters of Sabine Parish approve the limit in a Nov. 3, 2026, election. Representative Shamalhorn, presenting the bill, told the committee the measure would let local voters decide whether to adopt term limits.
Officials from Sabine Parish and constituent speakers urged rejection. Ricky Sepulvedo, president of the Sabine Parish Police Jury, said the jury received roughly 65 letters opposing the bill after the Senate committee acted and told the House panel that the parish did not request the legislation. "Term limits affect people's choices, their freedoms, and most of all their lives," Sepulvedo said.
William E. Weatherford, who served as Sabine Parish secretary‑treasurer and a longtime CPA for local governments, described the jury’s recent record of operations and savings, saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and urged the committee to oppose the measure. Several committee members questioned why the bill applied only to police jurors in a single parish and why it appeared not to reflect a locally initiated request.
Representative Farnham and others said they would prefer letting local voters decide; Representative Stagney objected to moving the bill forward without clearer local support. When the committee took a roll call on a motion to report the bill favorably, the result was 1 yes, 10 no; the motion failed.
Proponents said the bill aimed to prevent entrenched incumbency; opponents said the measure was imposed on a local governing body without its request and that Sabine voters already have the power to replace jurors at election time.
The bill failed to advance; sponsors said they would consider amendments or further local outreach before seeking reconsideration.
