Attorney General loses fight to kick judge off BR corruption cases
BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) - Ad Hoc Judge Bonnie Jackson has denied Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s request to have Judge Gail Horne Ray recused from presiding over the corruption cases against Councilman Cleve Dunn, Pearlina Thomas, a former CATS administrator, and contractor Jay Colar.
Her decision was announced during court on Wednesday, Nov. 4.
The attorney general’s office intends to seek writs.
The recusal motion was filed in September, claiming that because Ray’s attorney Steven Irving told WAFB last month, “three 19th Judicial District Court judges, including Ray, are suing Governor Jeff Landry, Attorney General Liz Murrill and Secretary of State Nancy Landry over voting rights,” Ray should be recused.
The lawsuit Irving was talking about is not new, but this motion to reopen the 1980s federal voting rights case is. In addition to the judges, numerous other plaintiffs are attached to the same case number that corresponds to this case filing. At the time, Irving told WAFB that Judges Don Johnson, Ron Johnson, and Gail Horne Ray are involved.
“Although your Honor is not formally listed as a movant, Your Honor’s own lawyer thus publicly attributed the renewed Clark litigation to you,” the motion reads. “That disclosure created a new and more serious recusal problem.”
The motion to have Ray removed says, “No reasonable observer therefore could conclude that Your Honor can now fairly preside over a case in which the Attorney General appears through the undersigned counsel.”
Irving issued the following statement in response to the Attorney General’s push to get Ray removed.
“There is a motion to reopen the Clark case to which Judge Ray is not a party and a separate declaratory judgment suit filed in February by three judges, one of whom was Judge Ray. These are two separate court cases.”
BACKGROUND ON THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS CASE
In 2025, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 243, which eliminated the three-subdistrict map for the 19th JDC. It replaced it with two subdistricts and a new at-large seat, all without seeking approval from the federal court that established the original consent decree.
Under the previous map, nine of the 19th JDC’s 15 judges were Black and six were white. Plaintiffs argue Act 243 was specifically drawn to reverse that trend, alleging that lawmakers only intervene when white voting power is at stake, but not when Black voting power is diluted.
The judges want the federal court to reopen the historical case, declare Louisiana is still bound by the original consent decree, and block Act 243 from taking effect. They are requesting an expedited ruling as the 2026 judicial elections approach.
Click here to report a typo. Please include the headline.
Click here to subscribe to our WAFB 9 News daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.
Watch the latest WAFB news and weather now.
