Blame for Cleo Fields’ Gerrymandered District Falls on Jeff Landry, Liz Murrill

By Woody Jenkins, Editor St. George Leader On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a suit challenging the racially-gerrymandered Con-

gressional district which gave Cleo Fields a seat in Congress and eliminated the only Congressional seat centered in Baton Rouge.  

The case, Callais v. Secretary of State Nancy Landry, has national ramifications because it could change the balance of power in the U.S. House and result in striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act.  

For us in Louisiana’s Sixth Congressional District, it has meant the loss of our popular Republican Congressman Garret Graves, a solid conservative vote, and his replacement by a far-left Democrat, Cleo Fields, who has done nothing in his term of office except support the extreme left opposing President Trump. Cong. Fields could not even bring himself to vote for a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk!

Blame for the election of Cleo Fields falls squarely on Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz

Murrill, as this column explains.

Callais v. Secretary of State Nancy Landry has attracted the attention of President Trump who is reportedly angry at Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill for passing legislation to eliminate a reliable Republican seat and handing the seat to liberal Democrat Cleo Fields at a time when Speaker Mike Johnson and the Trump agenda have a paper-thin margin in the House.

President Trump has been asking Governors in red states to help create Republican seats where legally possible — the exact opposite of what Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill did in Louisiana.

In Callais v. Secretary of State Nancy Landry, the lead plaintiff, Bert Callais, is one of several conservatives challenging the Cleo Fields’ district.  The defendant, Secretary of State Nancy Landry, is the defendant because of the office she holds, even though she is in agreement with Callais and the plaintiffs.  Landry has never supported

creation of the Fields’ district.

Shortly after Callais filed suit, the NAACP joined in the suit as an intervenor attempting to uphold the Cleo Fields’ district.

Perhaps the most important thing to know is that Attorney General Liz Murrill also joined as an intervenor on the side of the NAACP attempting to uphold the Cleo Fields’ district.  Murrill has been on the side of the far left supporting Fields!

HHH

Background. In 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed and Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed House Bill No. 1 to reapportion the state’s six Congressional districts in accordance with the results of the 2020 census. The Republican House and 

Senate then overrode Edwards’ veto. 

The reapportionment bill met constitutional standards but shortly after it passed, the NAACP filed suit in U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge challenging its legality (Robinson v. Ardoin).

Then-Attorney General Jeff Landry and then-Solicitor General Liz Murrill defended the 2022 reapportionment plan and made strong arguments that the plan was constitutional.

During their 2023 campaigns for Governor and Attorney General, neither Jeff Landry nor Liz Murrill gave the slightest hint that they planned to flip flop and support the NAACP’s position, but that’s exactly what they did.

The Flip Flop

Immediately upon being sworn in as Governor on Jan. 7, 2024, Jeff Landry called a Special Session of the Legislature to reapportion Louisiana’s seats in Congress.

This was completely unnecessary 

because Louisiana already had a plan in place, and there was no court order requiring that it be changed.

However, the brand-new Governor and his Attorney General falsely told the Louisiana Legislature and the public that the state was under a court order to reapportion the state’s Congressional districts and create a second majority black Congressional district.

In reality, the only court order at the time of the Special Session was from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It said that if the legislature took no further action, U.S. District Judge Shelley Dick was or

dered to hold a trial on the merits of the reapportionment plan and give the state the opportunity to appeal that decision or draw a new map.

The actual order from the U.S. 5th Circuit read as follows:

  “If no new plan is adopted, then the district court is to conduct a trial and any other necessary proceedings to decide the validity of the H.B. 1 map, and, if necessary, to adopt a different districting plan for the 2024 elections. The parties can advise the district court as to the necessary timing for completion of such a trial, with allowance for the time for appellate review.”

The State of Louisiana was not under a court order to create a second black Congressional district! 

On the contrary, Judge Dick was ordered to hold a trial on the merits.

A Valued Chairmanship

As part of his plan to give Cleo Fields a seat in Congress, Gov. Jeff Landry had Sen. Cleo Fields appointed chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which is in charge of reapportionment.  

This was a most unusual move!  The Louisiana Senate has 27 Republicans and only 12 Democrats.  Whoever heard of a 2/3rds Republican body putting a liberal Democrat in charge of reapportionment?

However, Senate President Cam-

eron Henry dutifully complied with the Governor’s request and appointed Cleo Fields head of the reapportionment committee.

Committee Approved District

After several meetings, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee under Sen. Cleo Fields’ direction passed a racially gerrymandered district for Sen. Fields.  

There was no area in Louisiana with a community of black voters large enough to justify a new black Congressional district. 

So, in order to give the district a Democratic majority, it weaved from Baton Rouge to Shreveport, picking up every possible majority black precinct along the way.  

Because of the representations of the Governor and the Attorney General and intense pressure from the 4th Floor, the Louisiana Legislature approved the Cleo Fields’ Congressional district in the Special Session. 

The plan was perfect for Fields  since it was virtually identical to a district he had represented when he was in Congress from 1994 to 1996.  That plan too was racially gerrymandered and was struck down as unconstitutional in 1996.

Gov. Jeff Landry signed the new Cleo Fields’ gerrymandered district into law on Jan. 21, 2024, one of his first acts as Governor.

It was no doubt the fulfillment of a promise Jeff Landry made to Cleo Fields, whose support for Landry goes back to the Attorney General’s race of 2015.

Callais v. Secretary of State

Bert Callais and his group filed suit against the Cleo Fields’ district on Jan. 31, 2024.  It was called Callais v. Secretary of State Nancy Landry.  The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard it in March 2025.   

Observers of the Supreme Court say it seems clear the court intends to do something rather dramatic in 

this case, perhaps even striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act and eliminating race as a consideration in reapportionment cases.

For more than 20 months, Attorney General Murrill has been on the same side of the Callais case as the NAACP.  From the District Court to the Supreme Court, she has supported a racially gerrymandered Con-

gressional district for Cleo Fields!

***

Another Flip Flop

Enter the President…

President Trump reportedly called Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill to Washington, had his people take them to the woodshed, and directed them to fix what they had done.

Suddenly, both Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill flipped their positions again and said the Cleo Fields’ district, which they strong-armed through the legislature and continued to argue for for 20 months, is a bad thing!

Well, that’s good!

However, instead of Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill admitting they were part of a sordid political deal to hand over a seat in Congress to Cleo Fields and the Democrats and delete a Republican seat, they have been trying to publicly re-write history.  Murrill says she has always been against racial gerrymandering!

Seriously?

And there is more, much more.

Attorney General Liz Murrill has tried to silence the one voice of reason in the chaos — Secretary of State Nancy Landry.

On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Nancy Landry, as the lead defendant in the case, to answer the question of whether the Cleo Fields’ district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments.

Contrary to Murrill’s statement that Nancy Landry “parachuted” in at the 11th hour, the Secretary of State simply did what the Supreme Court directed her to do: Answer the question. In answer to the question, the Secretary of State wrote a brief saying that indeed the Cleo Fields’ district violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

Silencing Secretary of State

However, Murrill was determined that brief would not be filed.Late on the day before briefs in Callais v. Secretary of State were due at the U.S. Supreme Court, Murrill informed Secretary  of State Nancy Landry that all of Nancy Landry’s legal team was fired!  Not only those assigned to Callais but all of her outside counsel, some of whom had worked with the Secretary of State’s office for 20 years.

In addition, Murrill informed Nancy Landry that she was prohibited from filing her legal brief with the Supreme Court in Callais v. Secretary of State.

Bear in mind that Nancy Landry is the defendant in Callais v. Secretary of State Nancy Landry.

While the Attorney General is authorized to represent the “interests” of the State of Louisiana in any case, the State of Louisiana and the Secretary of State are different legal entities with different responsibilities and different interests.

Specifically, La.R.S. 36:741 describes the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. The department is defined as a “body corporate,” which gives it a separate existence from the State of Louisiana.  The department specifically has the power “to sue and be sued.”  Necessary to that and inherent in that is the power to retain legal counsel.

This principle is well established in Louisana law. In 1931, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in Saint v. Allen, that the State Highway Commission was a “body corporate,” distinct from the State of Louisiana with the power to sue and be sued.  The court said that implicit in that power is the right to  employ counsel to represent it, notwithstanding any statute.

The court said that while the Attorney General has the duty to represent the “interests of the state,” the word “interests” has to be interpreted narrowly because otherwise, the task would be impossible. Various state agencies and other “bodies corporate” have the duty to represent the interests assigned to them.

In 2019, in State ex rel Caldwell v. Molina, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed this holding, saying, “In general, where a governmental entity has the capacity to sue and be sued, the Attorney General has no right of action.”  The court specifically confirmed the continued viability of Saint v. Allen.

The Secretary of State is not inferior to nor governed by the Attorney General. On the contrary, it is the third highest office in the state, ahead of the Attorney General.

By law, the Attorney General has to approve the Secretary of State’s legal counsel. However, those counsel were already approved, in place, and working under contract. The AG has no power to fire them or to violate their contracts.   

Furthermore, Murrill informed Nancy Landry that she would not be assigned counsel, leaving the Secretary of State’s office without legal representation, an untenable position, and an obvious abuse of authority since the Secretary has the power to sue and be sued.

Since the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have different legal positions in Callais, which each is entitled to have, it would be unethical for the Attorney General to remove the Secretary of State’s counsel (if she could).  It would also be unethical for the AG to attempt to represent both agencies if they have different legal positions.

In any case, there is no way counsel for the Secretary of State could have dropped out of the case since they were in the midst of filing legal briefs.  In order to withdraw from a case before the Supreme Court, that has to be approved by the court.

Secretary’s Brief Was Filed

Despite Murrill’s demands, the Secretary of State’s brief was filed with the Supreme Court and is now before the Supreme Court as it considers Callais.

Why did Murrill attempt to stop the Secretary of State from filing her brief with the Supreme Court?

Probably because that brief outlines for the court the chronology of the case and shows Murrill’s duplicity and contradictory arguments and positions in the case.  

The Governor and the Attorney General have gotten a lot of heat from the public for installing Cleo Fields into office and eliminating a solid Republican seat.

Re-Writing History

Perhaps Murrill’s attempt to silence Nancy Landry is as simple as trying to re-write history so that now she can appear to be the shining star who got rid of the Cleo Fields’ Congressional seat. 

Instead, the truth is it was she, along with Jeff Landry, who brought us a racially gerrymandered Congressional seat and deprived the people of the state of their proper representation during the current Congress, ending in January 2027.