- What to do immediately after winning the Powerball jackpot, according to experts
- Trump administration says Kilmar Abrego Garcia is ineligible for asylum
- Mark Volman, founding member of ’60s rock group The Turtles, dies at 78
- Trump’s Fed chair finalists are Hassett, Warsh and Waller
- Calling all LSU and SU fans! Here is your game day forecast.
Lawmakers approved Act 2 in 2024 after a federal court said that an earlier map likely weakened Black voting strength, violating the Voting Rights Act.
According to the filing, Murrill first defended Act 2 in court and called it a “controversy-less matter.” But in a recent filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, she changed her mind and argued that the map was unconstitutional.
Lawmakers argue that only the legislature can make or suspend laws. They say Murrill’s new role threatens their authority.
They want a Baton Rouge court to issue a writ of mandamus. This order would require Murrill to keep defending Act 2 as constitutional or to step away from the case completely.
Murrill issues a statement
“This pleading is so patently baseless it’s sanctionable. Among other things, the state district court has no jurisdiction over the arguments the state attorney general makes in the United States Supreme Court on matters of federal law and the federal constitution. My answer to the question that SCOTUS posed is entirely consistent with my position in Robinson (the challenge to the prior Congressional map) and Nairne (the challenge to the State House & Senate maps). The Legislature complied with federal court orders, but that doesn’t mean we agreed with how we got here,” said Murrill.
Latest News
Discover more from RSS Feeds Cloud
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
