Attorney General Liz Murrill of Louisiana is taking a remarkable stance in an ongoing legal battle that could impact the future of the Voting Rights Act. Her decision to support the lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional map, which she initially approved, marks a shift in a complex saga that underscores significant tensions surrounding race and representation in the electoral process.
Murrill, an elected Republican who previously served as the state’s solicitor general, expressed her intent to affirm the plaintiffs’ claims in an interview with Fox News Digital. She articulated concerns over what she labeled “cracking and packing,” a practice where minority voters are dispersed among districts to dilute their voting strength. By challenging the existing map—which currently favors Republicans and includes only one majority-black district instead of two—Murrill contends that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act conflicts with constitutional principles. “If Section 2 requires us to do that, then it is in conflict with the equal protection clause,” she stated. Her belief is that constitutional safeguards should take precedence over any statutory requirement that seeks to design districts along racial lines.
The backdrop to this case reveals a history of political maneuvering since Louisiana’s last census. While one-third of the state’s population is black, the congressional map drawn following the 2020 census concentrated voting power into fewer districts, leaving just one majority-black district. Civil rights advocates challenged this, claiming it diluted black voters’ strength. After a series of legal challenges and rulings declaring the map a violation of the Voting Rights Act, Murrill finds herself at a crossroads. Rather than allowing the courts to dictate the terms, she argues that the state should assert its sovereignty and draw compliant maps—even if she believes those maps still violate the Constitution.
Murrill dismissed suggestions that she is engaging in a “bait-and-switch,” insisting she has consistently communicated her concerns about the practicality of creating a second majority-black district. Her remarks illustrate the tension within the debate. “We don’t think we can do this, but because the courts have told us we have to do it, we’re going to go do it,” she explained, reinforcing her position by highlighting the potential backlash from non-black voters claiming violations of their rights.
The plaintiffs, made up of black voters and civil rights groups, have requested the Supreme Court to recognize that maintaining two majority-black districts is necessary to ensure proper representation. During her interview, Murrill countered this assertion, arguing that such claims rely on harmful stereotypes. “It’s not fair to just lump these people into large categories because of the color of their skin,” she asserted. Her response reflects a broader debate on how race should influence redistricting, pushing back against an idea that she views as offensive and reductive.
As the Supreme Court reviews the case, its eventual decision could redefine race-conscious redistricting in the U.S. and potentially alter electoral maps across Louisiana and beyond. Although oral arguments suggest the Court may curtail race-based districting, the full implications of their ruling remain unpredictable.
According to Murrill, the uncertainty surrounding the Court’s timeline and final decision complicates preparations for the upcoming 2026 elections. She stressed that the current priority must be to delay qualifying dates, ensuring that the legislature has adequate time to understand the new rules dictated by the Court’s ruling.
In this intricate legal landscape, Murrill’s unusual alliance with the plaintiffs signals a significant shift. As the implications of her stance unfold, all eyes will be on how this case influences the balance between representation and constitutional protections in Louisiana and potentially sets a precedent for future cases on the Voting Rights Act nationwide.
"*" indicates required fields
