By the ANTIGRAVITY VOTER GUIDE TEAM October 2024

This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.

Welcome once again to your ANTIGRAVITY voter education guide for the November 5 election. On this ballot, you will be voting for president, Congressional representative, some school board members, a statewide Constitutional amendment, and a handful of Orleans Parish ballot measures. For this election cycle, many races for judge, constable, and school board went uncontested.

We have published these guides since 2014—previously in collaboration with the New Orleans Harm Reduction Network and now under the ANTIGRAVITY banner. We utilized national media, local media, and social media. Our research included but was not limited to public records, campaign finance reports, court filings, and real estate records.

Despite lacking faith in politicians or the political order, we create this document as a way to dissect and map power. We do not offer endorsements, but we do provide summaries, as this is a resource designed to aid and alleviate the work for you, the reader. News relevant to this ballot will continue to break. We are but one resource, and we hope that you consult as many as possible before heading to the polls.

We suggest you bring a photo ID to the polls, but if you do not have one you can still cast a ballot by signing a voter affidavit which vouches for your identity. The secretary of state audits all voter affidavits after the election to ensure that you are who you say you are.

If you have a disability, you are entitled to receive assistance to cast your vote. If your assigned polling place is not accessible, you can vote at the nearest polling place with the same ballot or at the Registrar of Voters Office.

The makeup of the ballot, including names of candidates and texts of propositions, as well as information about how, where, and when to register and vote is based on information provided by the Louisiana secretary of state and the City of New Orleans website. For info on what your ballot looks like, as well as information about disability and voting, go to the SoS website, voterportal.sos.la.gov.

If you find that you cannot in good conscience cast a vote for any of the candidates for a particular race or a specific ballot measure, you are allowed to skip that ballot item. According to the secretary of state’s office, “A voter cannot cast a blank ballot; otherwise, they are free to vote for as many or as few races/questions as are on their ballot—from all of them to just one of them.”

This voter guide is offered without cost as a service to our beloved readers, but donations are accepted to help cover research fees and labor. A suggested donation of whatever your lifestyle considers $5 is appreciated. Payments can be made via Venmo or PayPal to @antigravitymag (all one word, no dashes). Please include “Voter Guide” or “VG” in the comment or memo.

For those of us trying to survive day to day in the American dystopia, in which civil liberties, social services, and basic rights are disappearing before our very eyes, it can be hard to see beyond the struggles of our own embattled population. But on election day, we will be electing the president of the United States—a new commander-in-chief, the head of a vast empire in control of ghoulishly sophisticated war technology with the power to annihilate life on Earth as we know it.

The United States military currently has approximately 170,000 troops deployed in 159 countries around the world, as well as almost 800 military bases (not counting the clandestine lily pad bases—which host special operations forces and surveillance flights—known under the euphemism of “cooperative security locations”), where military personnel are not subject to the laws of the host country, but to their own tribunals. The military is also in possession of over 5,000 nuclear warheads—it is estimated that the detonation of a single one in New York City would cause over half a million deaths—of which most are located within our borders, with the rest held by host nations such as Germany, Italy, and Turkey. The Department of Defense’s yearly budget has now reached almost $886 billion (a figure that does not include veterans’ benefits or the Department of Veterans Affairs), a number higher than the other nine countries on the list of highest defense budgets worldwide combined, and is expected to increase every year until it hits close to $1.1 trillion annually by 2034. As the budget continues to increase, the military will advance development of war technologies such as lethal autonomous weapons, missiles that travel at the speed of sound, and bioweaponry.

That Donald Trump did not show particular interest in waging war during his previous term is not the vote of confidence it might be in an at-all-rational individual; his whims are growing increasingly erratic such that there is no reason to expect that if he falls out with a member of the strong man bro club he won’t deploy the military just to settle a dick measuring contest. But we know for a fact that a Harris presidency would not shy away from military engagements in which the word “defense” will grow increasingly absurd as a description of the aggressions of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

To look the entirety of what the world is facing dead in the eye is terrifying on a cellular level, and it makes sense that people would rather rail against what they perceive to be the worst of it, and choose to overlook the flaws in the opposing side. But as citizens of an empire with as much power as ours, we should not permit ourselves that luxury. Instead, let’s cast our votes for ourselves—as well as every village across the globe (whose inhabitants can no longer hear the buzz of a honeybee without fearing an impending drone attack) and the starving, mutilated, and diseased population of Gaza with no end to their suffering in sight.

Of course, our votes don’t allow us to stop the American war machine any more than they allow us to stop corporations from polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe, or any of the other horrors before which we appear to be powerless. The electoral college maintains distance between voters and election results. Our two-party system keeps us gridlocked between a rock and a hard place. Is there a reason to vote for president? We certainly can’t decide that for you. If there were real power in voting, the system would allow us to say no to unacceptable choices without it simply communicating the apathy of a disaffected electorate, without whose participation the system will carry on just fine.

But the one power we will never have to cede is our consciousness, which is fortunate, considering that approaching a seemingly impossible problem with the fullest awareness is the start of everything extraordinary that human beings have ever done. So while we won’t tell you who to vote for in this hit parade of moral compromise, we hope you will see nausea as the only reasonable reaction to those bubble gum pink Harris-Waltz campaign signs out there with stylized Barbie typeface. We’re talking about putting someone in charge of the Death Star, not the Barbie Dreamhouse, and what’s really needed here is not a new leader, but the blueprint that will show us its weak spots.

Local elections, however, are the real reason we painstakingly assemble this guide, and showing up for the down ballot races has more impact than any national election. Under our current governor Jeff Landry, the Louisiana political landscape is bleak, and asserting our presence—that we are here, and we exist in tangible numbers capable of fighting against these extreme Republican policies—is worth walking to your polling place for. Even if you have a difficult time getting behind individual candidates, there are some important ballot measures that help protect workers and housing. That matters!

So buckle up, and let’s get into it.

Presidential Electors

Kamala D. Harris of California / Tim Walz of Minnesota (Democratic)
Jill Stein of Massachusetts / Ajamu Baraka of Illinois (Green)¹
Chase Oliver of Georgia / Mike ter Maat of Virginia (Libertarian)
Donald J. Trump of Florida / “JD” Vance of Ohio (Republican)
Peter Sonski of Connecticut / Lauren Onak of Massachusetts (American Solidarity Party)
Randall Terry of Tennessee / Stephen Broden of Texas (Constitution Party)
Mattie Preston of Louisiana / Shannel Conner of Texas (Godliness, Truth, Justice)
Cornel West of California / Melina Abdullah of California (Justice For All)
Claudia de la Cruz of New York / Karina Garcia of New York (Socialism and Liberation)
Rachele Fruit of Florida / Dennis Richter of Texas (Socialist Workers Party)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of New York / Nicole Shanahan of California (We The People)

If you’ve come here to figure out if we think you should vote for Kamala Harris, you will leave disappointed. We find ourselves, again, with the existential threat that is Donald Trump against an “imperfect” but “better” option that the liberal masses will tell you you MUST vote for, lest you be personally responsible for the downfall of American Democracy.

We will not say the outcomes of this presidential election will yield the same presidency, and attached threats, no matter who wins. That is not true. The Republican plan to gut services and revoke privileges is real, and it is already happening as evidenced in our current governor, Jeff Landry. Louisianians are acutely aware of the actual effects that an extreme right-wing politician has on the political ecosystem, and we are not saying that Donald Trump is equivalent to Kamala Harris.

However.

You might consider it of note that, as of publication, of the $685 million currently raised by the Harris campaign, $264,000 was donated by Lockheed Martin, $401,000 by Boeing, and $125,000 by General Dynamics, all of which are companies complicit with arming Israel’s bombardment of Gaza—and all outmatched donations to Trump. And these numbers are paired with Harris’ own statements about her aims for the military—she has vowed to make sure that America has the “most lethal fighting force in the world.”

This should have been a cake walk for Harris. As voters begged for anybody but Biden—many because of his actions standing with and arming Israel—a campaign of uncommitted voters and an abysmal debate performance helped push along something unprecedented: an incumbent president dropping out of the race three months before the election. If you went online in the days following, there was a wave of surprising acceptance, dare we say enthusiasm, for Kamala Harris, a candidate that many progressives previously denounced for her prosecutorial record, a record she has been accused of inflating. And with the addition of Tim Walz to her ticket, a guy with a legitimately progressive political record and who everyone was parasocially latching onto as a father figure, it seemed like Harris had it in the bag.

But in the weeks since becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris seems committed to proving she does not want to win over the left, and is not interested in doing anything different or less violently. In fact, when asked what she would do differently than Biden, she said “not a thing comes to mind”—except of course adding a Republican to her cabinet. She also stated that she wants to create a “bipartisan council of advisors” that would help her shape policy. Harris is, continuously, alienating the progressive base, unable to even lie to the public like all the other deceitful progressive candidates, and is telling you, us, right now, in her own words, that she has no intention of ending arms sales to Israel, will follow into war with Iran, is no longer pushing Medicare for All, has not pushed for abortion protections beyond restoring Roe, and won’t ban fracking.

The current death toll in Gaza since October 7, 2023, according to Al Jazeera, is just under 43,000 people—though it is suspected that the actual death toll is much higher, as journalists and record-keepers are killed by Israel’s military and bodies are obliterated beyond recognition by American-made bombs.

Critics of voters opposed to Harris based on her involvement in the genocide in Palestine say that there is too much at stake to be a single-issue voter. But this is not a “single issue.” The decision to send bombs to blow up whole family lines is not a decision that exists in a vacuum. The humble request to “stop killing an entire people” is not a complicated one. And any politician vying for our vote should have to answer to us, not brush off legitimate criticisms as a vote for their opponent.

Yes, absolutely, Trump will be worse, will be catastrophic. But we must continuously put to record how terrible, violent, and unmistakably evil the alternative is as well.

Jill Stein is not a new name to the presidential electoral stage, having run under the Green Party for every presidential primary since 2012, except for 2020. As of 2020, the Green Party is the fifth-largest multi-state political party and focuses on a progressive socioeconomic and “green” political ideology and has been mainly successful in local, nonpartisan offices. The presidential campaign motto is “People, Planet, Peace.”

It’s hard to say that Stein has had a political career, though she has been an involved political activist since the early 2000s. She shares the ticket with Black and Islamic studies associate professor Rudolph “Butch” T. Bilal Ware, who replaced Stein’s former running mate.

Stein has a proposed list of progressive policies highlighting tax reform, accessible education and health care, increasing the minimum wage, prison reform, 2SLGBTQIA+ rights, the ecosocialist “Real” Green New Deal, and global demilitarization. Ware is hoping his political debut will be an opportunity to subvert systemic white supremacy. “I’m not a politician, I’m a scholar… but you will find me a willing warrior with resolve in the cause of liberation,” said Ware.

But the path forward is uphill. Third-party candidates such as Stein have been dealing with Democrats removing them from ballots and Republicans bolstering their campaigns. To maintain ballot access in at least 42 states, Stein’s campaign has apparently been engaged with Republican-affiliated professionals, like alleged January 6 rioter Trent Pool who provided ballot-access signature services, and Trump’s former personal attorney Jay Sekulow. Labeled a “spoiler campaign,” even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made jabs at Stein live on Instagram for not being effective at growing a competitive alternative party, calling her campaign “predatory.” The Democratic Party fears Stein could hamper Kamala Harris’ chances to win key swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

However, it’s in battleground states like these where Stein is garnering support from Muslim and Arab-American voters, who are shifting their weight behind Stein for her firm stance against arming Israel and ending the genocide of Palestinians, according to a Reuters poll. “I will call Netanyahu and tell him the genocide is over. The occupation is over,” promises Stein in an interview. She has since gained the endorsements of the Muslim American Public Affairs Council and the Abandon Harris movement.

To be blunt, Stein is unlikely to win. “People-backed” third-party candidates will never become serious contenders against corporation-funded, PAC-pilled major political parties until voters divorce from a “lesser of two evils” mindset. Since both evils will continue to fund genocide, then the Green Party offers one of the few remaining progressive alternatives this year.

Whether or not you’d consider casting your vote outside of the two-party contest, observing the ideological consistency of libertarian Chase Oliver’s campaign reveals by contrast why it can be so hard to hold Democrats and Republicans accountable to their core ideologies: neither of them have one. This is why in the span of a hundred years the Democratic Party might go from hiring white supremacist paramilitaries for a murderous voter suppression offensive targeting newly enfranchised Southern Blacks to counting such Southern Black civil rights leaders as John Lewis among their leadership. Duly it explains why the Republicans might go through the Cold War positively salivating over every possible opportunity to destabilize third-world governments and spend decades using the American military machine to escalate international violence at the drop of a hat, only to now turn away from foreign affairs and leave the warmongering to the Democrats. But as these two parties find themselves at the mercy of the political winds, the simplicity of the less-is-more libertarian approach to government provides its adherents with a strong rudder, and watching it cut through the extreme partisanship of the political moment can be illuminating.

To see what Chase Oliver brings to the discourse, you’ll have to first look past his prep school name and Ivy League face, and set your preconceived notions about libertarians aside (admittedly difficult given their prominence in the 21st century broscape). Only then can you fully appreciate Oliver’s true diversity of opinion. For instance, you might think that the libertarian candidate would reply to the Ballotpedia question about their favorite book with, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, because the individual is God—but you would be wrong: Oliver selected Dune, explaining that it serves as an “object lesson in the corrupting influence of power.” As William Shakespeare, J.R.R. Tolkien, and any conscious population in the iron grip of authoritarian governments all know, the possession of political power can rot the human soul with an alacrity rivaled only by excessive accumulation of wealth. But since when do politicians bring it up during an election cycle?

Before Chase Oliver was a die-hard libertarian, he was an antiwar activist disturbed by both parties’ contributions to the military-industrial complex, and was pleasantly surprised with the way the do-no-harm principle of individual autonomy within libertarian doctrine could make peace a practicable reality. Governments, after all, control the levers of war. One pitfall of libertarianism is the habit of building up government as a convenient straw man, and it’s true that Oliver’s emphasis on relying on the markets rather than government to ensure domestic tranquility doesn’t quite account for the deeply intertwined relationship between the U.S. government and the global economy. (His running mate, former police officer and economist Mike ter Maat, did say in a recent debate that the only problem with collapsing the federal government is that it would mean also collapsing global markets, and sees dismantling the Federal Reserve as a first step in disentangling the two). But his focus on commerce doesn’t mean that standing against corporate interests isn’t part of Oliver’s broader vision; he just believes in exploring non-legislative mechanisms to achieve it.

For instance, Oliver is vocal that clean water and air are indivisible from the rights of an individual. But instead of appealing to a government institution as rife with corruption as the EPA to solve the problem, Oliver suggests removing such legal restrictions as tort caps to hit corporations in the only place they really hurt, and bankrupt the world’s worst polluters. This would mean both that environmental destruction would be less viable for corporate business models, and that the damages received could be used as necessary capital to clean up the mess. He also points out that removing the government’s power of eminent domain would safeguard the right to deny any company’s proposal to build a pipeline through your land and water supply.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Oliver’s positions, such as his assertion that the possession of semi-automatic weapons does not inherently pose a public safety hazard, or his proposal to get rid of public education and let market forces take care of the student loan problem—which is a direct consequence of market forces taking over higher education. But it’s interesting to see his conservative talking points sitting peacefully beside fervently held leftist ideas, such as the right to bodily autonomy that is directly applicable to both abortion and trans rights. His party’s small government ethic also dovetails into an intense aversion to government surveillance and a strong stance against mass incarceration, about which Oliver does not mince words. As he puts it on his website, “The current system feeds a prison-industrial complex that leads to the militarization of our police, corruption in our prosecutors who have perverse incentives to push for longer sentences, the building of private prisons that value profit over rehabilitation, and a cycle of incarceration that breeds lowered earnings and poverty that leads to recidivism.” In the interest of dismantling this system, he proposes coalition building with leftists who share his aims.

It should come as no surprise that, if elected, he plans to pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and the libertarian cause célèbre and deep web maven Ross Ulbricht. That this list also includes Leonard Peltier, one of this country’s longest-held political prisoners, is less of a libertarian given. In the ‘70s, Peltier was a member of the Black Panther-inspired American Indian Movement (AIM), which sought to address the structural inequities and racial discrimination faced daily by American natives with radical community care and cultural pride. He is currently serving a life sentence for the deaths of two FBI officers, which resulted from an infamous 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge reservation. The case was built on flimsy evidence and marred by indisputable obstruction of due process by the Bureau. The political motivations of the FBI’s grudge being fairly obvious, what does it say that in the nearly 50 years of Peltier’s incarceration, one president after another, Democrat and Republican alike, has chosen as one of their last acts before leaving office to deny Peltier’s petitions for clemency, in spite of the advocacy efforts of Amnesty International, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Special Rapporteur, the President of the European Parliament, Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, and an ex-U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Peltier himself 40 years before? To observe the executive branch—regardless of political party—so consistently side with the FBI on matters of conscience exposes much about the government machine that Chase Oliver so opposes, and his vow to set Peltier free immediately upon taking office is a poignant reminder that another way is possible.

What’s there to be said about Donald Trump that you don’t know? The man is addicted to the limelight, so there’s no shortage of publicly-aired laundry. We could mention he’s been held liable for sexual abuse, or how he’s the first president to get indicted on criminal charges after leaving office. We can mention that over 700 national security officials, former members of his own cabinet, and Republican Party heavyweights like Dick Cheney and Mike Pence (the Vice President he tried to hang out to dry) either won’t endorse him or have flatout endorsed Vice President Harris. Then there’s the attempted overthrow of the government via the fake electors plot, which was overshadowed by the Capitol riot. Something else that went under the radar was the extrajudicial murder of an activist, after which Trump seemed to be open to the idea of making extrajudicial murders of civilians a thing. Much more recently, he’s been spreading misinformation about the post-Hurricane Helene recovery efforts, stating that the federal government diverted $1 billion of FEMA funding to undocumented immigrants. Because of his lies, armed militias in North Carolina roamed around “hunting” FEMA employees, causing the employees to have to leave. But let’s forget all that and focus on one point he made throughout the 2024 campaign: that he’d be a dictator on day one. That’s a promise he made at a town hall, while assuring the audience that it would only be for a day. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt that he’d relinquish absolute power once he got a taste for it.

For example, his plans to mass deport as many “illegal” immigrants as possible using the National Guard would take considerably more than a day. It has been pointed out that it would be a costly, logistical nightmare, though it’s probably more important to state that rounding up suspected illegal migrants is cruel and authoritarian, and would very likely target Black and Brown people—migrants and documented citizens alike. There is precedent for this country mass deporting people, with the now-forgotten “Operation Wetback.” The operation was led by Harlon Carter, who is credited for radicalizing the NRA, and led to a severe violation of Hispanic peoples’ rights, with some Mexican American U.S. citizens being deported to a country they never belonged to. If Trump’s plan of rounding up “illegals” isn’t enough, in addition, he alluded to arresting political adversaries.

As far as his business policy goes, he plans to “drill baby drill,” and promised Big Oil he would deregulate their industry. This is despite oil execs asking Trump to please not scrap Biden’s climate law policies, if he were to get back into the White House. Trump has also threatened a 200% tariff if John Deere moved their production to Mexico. In terms of finances, Trump and aligned PACs have raised $642.2 million as of October 15, $126.5 million of which comes singularly from banking heir Timothy Mellon.

One thing voters should also keep an eye on is that Trump is already setting up the next Big Lie in the event he loses. His rhetoric around election denialism has grown more extreme. At a rally in Pennsylvania, he accused the city of Philadelphia of cheating in the 2020 election. At the same rally, he said Kamala Harris should be prosecuted (for what, he wouldn’t elaborate).

Running alongside Trump is the more polished JD Vance, who once compared Trump to Hitler. The flip-flop of his opinions on Trump shows he’s a man willing to say whatever he needs to have power, which seemingly makes it hard to know what he really believes in. Until you see the company he keeps. Under the veneer of civility and level-headedness is someone just as extreme as Trump, and that’s thanks to men like tech billionaire Peter Thiel (cofounder of PayPal) and influential anti-democracy blogger Curtis Yarvin who both hold authoritarian leanings. Vance’s political career has been bankrolled by Thiel, who once wrote an essay stating that he no longer believed in freedom or democracy. For Curtis Yarvin’s part, he believes America should be run like a monarchy. This thinking has rubbed off on Vance, or as Vance said in a podcast, he was “redpilled.” Redpilled is a term popularized by Yarvin, with the movie The Matrix being the inspiration for it. Vance’s authoritarian streak has snuck out over the years in podcasts and random interviews. He believes that conservatives need to “attack” the collegiate institutions in the country that come up with research for “ridiculous” ideas. In addition, Vance in 2021 urged Trump to “seize the institutions of the left,” and replace every “mid level” bureaucrat with “their” people. And if the Supreme Court tried to stop Trump? Well, Vance thinks Trump should ignore them. When looking at Vance and noting his history of flip-flopping and kicking it with avowed authoritarians, it makes his admission that he knowingly spread false stories about Haitians eating dogs in his home state of Ohio much more heinous, as he’s showing that he’d throw the most vulnerable under the bus to attain power, and even partner with Trump.

Trump and Vance once upon a time looked like they would win for sure until Biden stepped down and voters rallied around Kamala Harris. Trump’s campaign is losing momentum, and not even a second assassination attempt seems to have moved the needle. Not to mention, abortion is kicking the GOP’s asses electorally, which has led to Trump flip-flopping, which has led to criticism from pro-lifers. Trump and Vance’s campaign is also being weighed down by Project 2025, which has been successfully tied to Trump.

It’s very likely that if Trump and Vance get into the White House, a group of too-online authoritarians and leaders of ultra-religious think-tanks will have sway over the two most powerful men in the world. Using Trump’s first term as an example of how he would govern this time is misguided, as some of Trump’s worst impulses were stifled by the more level-headed Republicans in his administration. This includes Trump having to be told he couldn’t have protesters shot, and former Vice President Mike Pence standing firm against Trump when asked to participate in stealing the 2020 election. Trump has learned from his first term and has plans to fill his administration with sycophants who are loyal to him, not the country. He wants to stop the “anti-white sentiment” that he feels is in the country by gutting executive orders that were meant to boost diversity and racial equity. He will send National Guard into cities experiencing “high crime” (despite crime falling), whether the state wants that or not; and will withhold Justice Department grants from cities that don’t adopt his preferred policies (like stop and frisk).

So what we’ll be getting a second time around is a Trump who is more politically experienced, and has the entire far-right apparatus in his ear; a Trump now openly stating that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation; and a Trump that is very, very angry about losing the election and the perceived political prosecution. He’s also very emboldened. When questioned by Time about whether he thought his talk of being a dictator was contrary to our nation’s cherished principles, he said, “I think a lot of people like it.”

Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak are the ticket for the American Solidarity Party (ASP), a third party with no elected members in state or federal government, which advocates for a Christian democracy. The Sonski/Onak ticket is doomed before a single ballot is even cast, because they are struggling to get on the ballot in every state. As of early October, they were only on the ballot in seven states. Not to mention, according to Open Secrets, they don’t seem to have much in the way of funding, and have only spent a little over $100,000 on this race.

Sonski has more than a dozen years of electoral politics experience, with his most recent held position being a member of Connecticut’s Regional School District 17 board of education. Onak is a stay-at-home mother of three, who doesn’t seem to have had any electoral experience prior to this run.

The ASP is a relatively new party with very minimal media coverage. They did get some coverage in the National Review, a decades-old conservative magazine that has always had clout on the right. Despite that, the party doesn’t view the GOP as compatriots, and have been trying to wedge pro-life voters away. Sonski, in a Newsweek op-ed, tried appealing to pro-lifers disillusioned with both Trump’s flip-flopping abortion stance and the Democrats’ broad support of abortion. They are cradle-to-grave pro-lifers, meaning they are against euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. However, they are proponents of social justice, environmental stewardship, and international peace.

Though the ASP tries to toe the line between the two major parties, they seem like they would appeal to a devout Christian turned off by extreme Republicanism but who also hates that Democrats are pro-choice. But even if they had more money to run a competitive campaign, the ASP just doesn’t have the infrastructure to compete, and their abortion stance is a nonstarter. The party is only a little over a decade old though, so maybe they have a future. For now, there’s no path to victory.

Randall Terry, the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, has been a staple of the anti-abortion movement and right wing politics for decades. He’s been arrested 49 times in relation to his antics to stop abortions from being performed, like chaining himself to the entrance of clinics. These stunts got him all over the media during his prime. He founded Operation Rescue, a group that became known for literally obstructing access to abortion by standing in front of clinics. His tactics led to Bill Clinton signing the “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.”

The Constitution Party’s stated goal is limiting the powers of federal agencies, especially those not created by the Constitution. And according to the Constitution Party page, they are the only 100% pro-life party. But for this election cycle, their main objective seems to be hurting the Democrats, with their campaign theme being: “Defend Children, Defeat the Democrat Nominee, Destroy the Democrat Party!”

Democrats attempted to use Terry as a way to siphon votes from Trump by elevating him and helping with ballot access in certain states. Ballot access is a large hurdle for third parties to clear. When asked about whether or not Democrats could be aiding his campaign, he said it was possible and he understood the thought process but added, “I want Kamala to lose way more than I want Trump to win.”

Terry’s partner in the joint venture to destroy the Democrats is Stephen Broden. Broden is the founder and senior pastor of Fair Park Bible Fellowship in Dallas. He once stated that violently overthrowing the government was on the table if the GOP didn’t “takeover” in 2010, and compared the Obama administration to Nazis on the Glenn Beck show. The Terry/Broden website assures voters that they won’t impact the Trump campaign, and make it clear that their goal is to destroy the “Democrat Party.” They believe it’s an attainable long term goal if only a small percentage of “Catholics and Blacks [came] to their senses.”

Minden, Louisiana’s very own Mattie Preston is one of the many third-party candidates running for President. Not much can be found about Preston’s party, the Godliness, Truth, and Justice party. A May 2024 article in the Minden Press-Herald indicates her party affiliation as Democrat and Preston ran an unsuccessful bid for Louisiana State Senate in 2019 as a registered Democrat, suggesting that the Godliness, Truth, and Justice party may have been created so she could throw her hat in the proverbial ring. At the time of this writing, no information could be found about her running mate, Shannel Conner.

According to her campaign website, Preston is a graduate of the College of Notre Dame in Belmont, California (where she earned a bachelors in politics, government, and public administration) and the United Theological Seminary, Bible College, where she became an ordained and licensed preacher. She also attended Lincoln University Law School, though it does not appear as though she graduated from that institution. A former assistant pastor, school bus driver, substitute teacher, and a licensed beautician, Preston claims that her political aspirations began in 2016 as a “divine calling,” stating, “I would like to see a leader of this country who follows the Bible as far as acknowledging God in all His or Her ways.” Preston’s political beliefs seem to be firmly rooted in her evangelical Christian faith, claiming, “‘I am not loyal to any party. There are things in both parties’ platforms that I agree and disagree with. God is not a Democrat; He’s not a Republican.’” She is anti-immigration and wants to close the border, stating, “We should put an end to the [illegal] immigration until the Americans are situated better. The priority is the American citizens, taking care of this country first before the charity is shared abroad,” a fairly common stance (that seems antithetical to many of the original tenets of Christianity). Preston’s campaign platform, as stated on her campaign website, is very surface level; she does seem to be in favor of increasing wages, equal pay for women, lower car insurance (specifically, Louisiana and Michigan), and “power to the people,” whatever that might look like or mean. Her stance on such pressing issues as Palestine, climate change, abortion, healthcare, and LGBTQIA+ rights are not published, though she did tell the Minden Press-Herald that “The law of God has to do with justice for all. God loves all; He loves homosexuals, He loves the unsaved, He loves the saved. He is about justice, and I don’t see that as being a threat at all.’

The best educated of the presidential candidates, Dr. Cornel West earned his scholarly laurels from the nation’s most prestigious universities, peppers his political rhetoric with quotes from William Butler Yeats and John Coltrane, and selected fellow academic Dr. Melina Abdullah as his running mate. Since his campaign has languished in recent months (amidst organized Republican efforts to boost West’s candidacy in order to divert votes from the Democrats), it seems safe to conclude that elevating the discourse is his primary goal. Preaching integrity and solidarity from his pulpit as fiercely as any pastor trying to save his flock from the fiery depths of hell, listening to him speak everywhere from a protest bullhorn to Fox News is like electroshock therapy for the politically apathetic. His platform is an exhaustive set of proposals—from restrictive gun laws and compassion-informed universal health care to clearing the path for immigrants to safely integrate into American society without fear of bureaucratic obstruction or violence at the hands of immigration authorities—which would allow the government to reverse course and become a true social safety net for its citizens. Of course, nowhere does Dr. West suggest how the government might escape this seemingly endless cycle of bloodlust and pathological self-deception and emerge sane and healthy enough to carry out these proposals, but then this campaign isn’t about practicality—it’s a demonstration of values. If abject horror over U.S. support of brutal Israeli militarism in occupied Palestine (and throughout the Middle East) has made a single-issue voter out of you, then Dr. West is your guy. No one on the ballot can compete with his track record of standing against Israel’s perpetrations of injustice, so if you are looking to use your vote to communicate your opposition to this war, the West-Abdullah ticket is probably the most straightforward way to do it.

On January 28, long-time social activists Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia launched their campaign for the White House, declaring their promise to end the “political project” of U.S. imperialism and capitalism. “We think this country deserves a better option. A socialist option,” says De la Cruz in their campaign video.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a Marxist-Leninist communist party created in 2004 with the goal of establishing socialism by revolting against capitalism. Their motto is “End Capitalism Before It Ends Us.” The most votes PSL has ever received for a presidential election was in 2020, having received 86,239 votes (0.05% of the popular vote).

PSL has a campaign program that starts with “seizing” the top 100 corporations and turning them into public property distributed amongst workers. Other points of their platform include disbanding federal agencies like the FBI and NSA, ending military and diplomatic aid to Israel, dispensing cash reparations to Black Americans, legalizing abortion as health care, and repurposing fossil fuel facilities into generating renewable energy.

De la Cruz was the founder of a young women’s center called Da Urban Butterflies, serves as a director on the board of the People’s Forum (a justice-oriented “movement incubator” in New York City), and is a pastor. Garcia is an educator, national organizer for Latina reproductive justice, and is a member of the Central Committee for PSL.

PSL’s predominant challenge is ballot access. As of October 5, they are printed on 19 state ballots and countable in 23 states as write-in candidates. Once again, the Democratic Party has challenged independent parties like PSL. A recent ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court allowed De la Cruz’s name to remain on the ballot (thanks to Republican efforts) while still being disqualified, meaning any votes they receive won’t actually count. That doesn’t seem to phase De la Cruz, who said, “It’s just a small thing in the context of larger work, political work that needs to be done.”

If you dive into the fragmentation of American communism, you can sense that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is like PSL’s deranged grandfather and has become something of a reclusive party, remaining outspoken through their underground publication The Militant. The SWP was expelled by the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) for supporting the bitter rival of Soviet Union General Secretary Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, who opposed Stalin’s totalitarianism and instead represented socialist democratic views. 21 years later in 1959, an activist known as Sam Marcy would lead a split from the SWP called the Workers World Party, which would later be fractured again to produce the PSL in 2004. Not long after the first split, SWP departed from founding Trotskyist ideology because of cult figure Jack Barnes, who led the party in becoming only industry workers (while he wasn’t ever one himself), selling issues of The Militant like a weird MLM, and disengaging from antiwar and anti-racist activism. Many essays have been written about the party’s collapse. And unlike PSL, SWP’s movement has adopted Zionist overtones since the 2020s.

On the ticket are Rachele Fruit and Dennis Richter, both union activists and working class citizens (Fruit is a hotel worker and Richter was an airline food service worker). Fruit’s extent of political experience has been running for a multitude of state offices, but with no success. Both Fruit and Richter are hoping to “put forward a working class program” to invigorate the proletariat ahead of the presidential election, despite only being able to achieve voter eligibility in six states. Richter stated he’s “unconcerned that he and Fruit will never reach the White House.”

Fruit’s platform reiterates party ideals, like strengthening unions, investing in public infrastructure jobs, and giving immigrants fair job opportunities, but doesn’t detail any specific policy actions, except one. Where they deviate from parties like PSL, Fruit/Richter promise a pro-Zionist agenda to defend Israel’s right to exist and support the eradication of Hamas. “We’re opposed to any ceasefire until that’s accomplished,” said Richter in an interview, claiming that the Israeli Defense Forces will save Palestine from Hamas. Fruit even says that workers in Gaza deserve the right to organize without consideration for the irrevocable bombing of Gaza by Israel for the past year.

They also dismiss Trump’s quadruple indictments.“It’s an attack on free speech and the right to a fair trial. That’s what we believe,” Richter said in an interview.

Anyone who’s ever dipped even a baby toe into the unfathomable rabbit hole of the Kennedy assassinations should not be surprised that Robert Kennedy Jr.’s campaign is best known for a penchant for conspiracy theories. If anything, it’s more surprising that only one of the Kennedys tumbled into that abyss of suspicion, though RFK Jr. more than makes up for his establishment-loyal siblings by lustily embracing his destiny as a continual embarrassment to the aristocracy that whelped him. After practically growing up inside a conspiracy, his attraction to them can be forgiven. What is less forgivable is that he could stoop to trendy pet delusions with which no true conspiracy theorist in their right mind would associate.

Kennedy assassination heads do their homework. The deaths of both John and Bobby have spawned a scholarship that would take a lifetime to read through in its entirety, and the true believers develop expertise in everything from ballistics to Cold War realpolitik and Texan political cabals. RFK Jr.’s theories, on the other hand, communicate nothing so much as an allergy to intellectual rigor. There’s no elegance in a belief that transgenderism is transmitted through the same water supply consumed by the cis and trans alike. Unlike the mythic journey that accompanies any serious inquiry into his father’s death, RFK Jr.’s conviction that antidepressants cause school shootings doesn’t take you anywhere different from the place you started.

Behind that kind of commitment to faulty logic usually lurks a massive, hungry ego, and RFK Jr. appears to be no exception. His campaign was a glorified bullhorn, and he used it to give his kookie notions the gift of an audience. That gift did not come cheap. According to Ballotpedia, Jr.’s campaign raised $60 million—as Libertarian Party leader Larry Sharpe told POLITICO, “RFK sucks the money out of the room.” And while RFK Jr. bills himself as anti establishment, his campaign’s top donors are such central figures of the American elite as billionaire railroad magnate and major Trump donor Timothy Mellon, who may share much of RFK’s paranoia, but in the grand tradition of wealthy eccentrics he acquired his idiosyncrasies well after he had built his fortune the old fashioned way: inherited wealth and the exploitation of land, labor, and natural resources.

For those of us constantly on the hustle, spending that much of other people’s money on a vanity project is a mind-boggling concept, especially considering that Kennedy didn’t even see the thing through. While he is technically on the ballot in 33 states, Kennedy suspended his campaign in August with a warm capitulation to Trump, leaving him with the tedious task of removing himself from the ballot in states where he spent months convincing officials to put him there. A number of states have declined this request to be removed, leaving RFK Jr. with no recourse but to marinate in the absurdity of his choices.

SUMMARY: Kamala Harris is the current vice president who has no intention of doing anything differently than our current president—most notably by continuing to arm Israel. Donald Trump is a legitimate threat to many of the institutions that protect individuals and our environment. Jill Stein has a firm stance against arming Israel but as a member of the Green Party has had trouble maintaining ballot access. Though there are reasons to disagree with some of Libertarian Chase Oliver’s policies, he offers a more cogent political ideology than Democrats or Republicans. Dr. Cornel West, while not a realistic choice, has the most outspoken track record against Israel. Claudia De la Cruz aims to establish socialism and end the U.S. political project of imperialism and capitalism, but has also had trouble maintaining ballot access. Rachele Fruit, though having some positive labor stances, has pro-Zionist beliefs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running on conspiracy theories, and not the interesting kind. Peter Sonski, Randall Terry, and Mattie Preston are all running in fringe, right-wing parties.

U. S. Representative
1st Congressional District

Randall Arrington (Republican)
J. “Frankie” Hyers (No Party)
Mel Manuel (Democrat)
Steve Scalise (Republican)
Ross Shales (Republican)
Margueritte Swanson (Republican) withdrew

Randall Arrington is a retired Navy aviator with a Ph.D. in political science from the University of New Orleans. He’s taught at Tulane, UCLA, UCSD, and LSU, receiving mixed reviews on the site RateMyProfessors.

“But be fully aware that being in the close proximity of Dr. Randy Arrington is NOT a safe space,” he wrote in his book Politics in America: Lecture Notes of a Lunatic Professor. “You will be exposed to the Truth and he will endure the consequences.” The book, released around 2016 through the self-publishing platform iUniverse, denounced Barack Obama as an “Islamo-Communist,” railed about taxes and political correctness, and praised the virtue of American mothers. A second volume came out last year, and his politics today appear to continue in that vein: “Donald Trump has the Marxist DemocRat [sic] rattlesnake backed into a corner,” he recently posted on X, and he appears to be running against incumbent Steve Scalise from the right.

“The incumbent Representative is a nice guy and I will never trash talk him during the campaign,” he wrote in a Ballotpedia survey that makes frequent references to Marxism. “But, In [sic] the current political context, we don’t need nice guys who consistently cave to the Democrat Party. We need True American Patriots and conservative fighters who actually love America and our original Founding Documents.”

Arrington is also the author of a novel called Kerosene Cowboys: Manning the Spare, which from an Amazon blurb appears to be about Navy aviators and the “bevy of beauties adorning the barstools” of a Belle Chasse officers’ club hoping to meet them. It was adapted into a 2014 direct-to-DVD, Top Gun-style film called Red Sky, featuring Bill Pullman and Rachael Leigh Cook. The film’s producers included Nikolay Suslov, a Russian action movie producer, and it apparently portrays Russian and American troops working together. “The Russian producers took my characters to fit a Russian story,” Arrington told a reporter in 2012. “So what (the audience) will get is a heroic operation that takes place with Americans and Russians collaborating.” The film even features an appearance by Arrington (who has since taken a critical view of Russian expansionism), playing a minor role. But if he could be any fictional character, he told Ballotpedia, he’d want to be Abraham Lincoln. We assume this is a political statement of some kind.

Frankie Hyers is a piano technician from Jefferson Parish, where for years he has regularly attended Parish Council meetings as a citizen gadfly. Last year he took it up a notch by running for councilmember-at-large, a bid that appears to have been more of an exercise in participatory government than a serious attempt to hold office. This year’s run for Congress is likely another such exercise—he may hope to connect with voters, but Hyers makes so little effort in that direction that if he does it’s because they’ve done the work required to come to him. Knowing him to be a Federalist Papers supernerd (having taken up Thomas Jefferson as his personal patron saint) goes a long way towards explaining the more inscrutable aspects of his campaign rhetoric, such as capitalizing improper nouns in the style of late 18th century political pamphlets and submitting constitutional principles as policy recommendations. Hyers doesn’t so much relentlessly quote Jefferson as he does channel the former president’s words in the manner of the spirit possessed.

But in his more lucid moments Hyers can be surprisingly insightful. His concerns are less about specific people in power and abuses thereof, and more about creating a civically engaged citizenry and addressing the fundamental flaws in our political system. Take Hyers’ particular bugaboo, the downward slide of our representational power in the legislative branch, which according to him began when the Apportionment Act of 1842 shifted the calculus of House representation away from the original method advocated by Jefferson in 1792, resulting in today’s representatives speaking for unmanageably large groups of people. Obscure though this information is, it is helpful to understanding the means by which political power is hoarded.

Ultimately, his inability to coherently explain his passion for this very specific thread of American legislative history does not suggest the kind of executive functioning you’d want to see from an elected official. Then again, if you relish the thought of Hyers and his ponytail marching into the nation’s highest legislative chambers to mansplain the Constitution to Congress as he has been to the longsuffering Jefferson Parish Council, he may yet earn your vote. Either way, consider asking whoever wins this election about adjusting the House’s representational power to ensure the people have more of a voice in Congress, because Hyers might well be onto something there.

ANTIGRAVITY last reported on Mel Manuel in Danny Cherry Jr.’s March feature Extreme Makeover: Louisiana Democratic Party Edition. Manuel is one of several progressives in the state who are working on reforming the Louisiana Democratic Party. Manuel, who was elected to the Democratic State Central Committee in the March election earlier this year, is the co-director of Queer Northshore, the director of operations for the Louisiana Abortion Fund, and a founding member of the St. Tammany Library Alliance, which was founded in opposition to conservative censorship of libraries in St. Tammany and beyond. They are a former public school teacher who graduated from Covington High School (valedictorian), Tulane University (summa cum laude), and Sapienza University.

On their campaign website, Manuel is quoted as saying, “‘I didn’t consider myself politically minded until Christian nationalists put a target on the backs of the LGBTQ+ community in the form of pro-censorship movements and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.” Along with politicians such as Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, Manuel is part of a movement of queer progressive politicians working to change the political tides in Louisiana. Manuel’s campaign’s core values are steeped in equality, autonomy, and access to all basic needs, including health care, shelter, food, and a living wage. Similarly, their platform is focused on LGBTQIA+ rights, gun control, abortion access, environmental protection, investment in education, and free health care, including Medicaid expansion, funding for community health centers, and legislation for reproductive rights, and a harm reduction approach to drug policy and treatment.

Manuel is running against conservative incumbent Steve Scalise, and they understand the odds. In an August 2023 article for The Nation, Manuel acknowledges Scalise’s advantages (Scalise’s campaign has raised over $10 million, compared to Manuel’s almost $49,000, a more than 200-to-1 fundraising gap) and sees their campaign as part of a long game: “Even if your candidate doesn’t win, if we can move the needle to 35 percent or 40 percent of the vote, that means the next progressive candidate will get more funding…we can still use the role of candidacy as a platform in and of itself,” Manuel told The Nation.

Steve Scalise has held this seat since 2008—earning about 70% of the vote each time—meaning we’ve covered him a lot. He was the House majority whip from 2014 to 2019, the House minority whip from 2019 to 2023, and has been the House majority leader since 2023. He is a huge player in the Republican Party, and has been a featured speaker at the Council for National Policy (CNP), an organization that shapes the right-wing agenda. Not only is he majorly influential on policies that shape Louisiana, but also on policies that shape the Republican agenda nationwide.

Scalise famously described himself to a Times-Picayune reporter as “David Duke without the baggage.” Most recently, The Guardian reported on a video of Scalise discussing a massive crackdown on universities that allow pro-Palestinian protests on campus, allegedly threatening to pull billions in funding and revoke accreditation. He has also been gifted multiple trips to Israel, paid for by American Israel Education Fund, founded by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—a lobbying group with a ton of power.

Also recently, Scalise has been pushing fictions that “FEMA, among a whole bunch of other federal agencies, has been using your tax dollars that are supposed to help you as American citizens… They use that money helping illegals here that they brought into America,” a claim that has been fact checked and debunked.

He has raised $10 million for this seat, leaps and bounds beyond the other candidates in this race. According to OpenSecrets, in 2021, he donated to notorious gun enthusiast Lauren Boebert. Scalise is a huge Trump supporter, even claiming that “Donald Trump was one of the first to come console my family at the hospital” while he was “fighting for [his] life” after being shot during a Congressional baseball game in 2017.

Ross Shales, an Army vet who has worked as an insurance agent and educator, is running as an anti-Trump Republican, and appears to be less stridently conservative than even some Louisiana Democrats. “I am running as the protest Republican candidate, and I want to put the GOP back on track,” he said in a Ballotpedia survey. “I am firmly convinced my party has placed all its time, money and energy on a bad horse named Donald Trump, and I am here to tell my party and the public it has done so and can do better.”

Shales wants term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, federal aid for hurricane-resistant construction, an abortion ban after 21 weeks, a balanced budget, and a revised Second Amendment to “ensure responsible gun ownership and require reasonable gun safety.”

He calls for funding green energy and natural gas in the interim, citing global warming as a risk for Louisiana, and favors “immigration laws that safely protect our borders while allowing people to immigrate to Louisiana and help grow our economy,” according to the Ballotpedia questionnaire. He told Voters Organized to Educate that he’s against the death penalty and generally thinks prison terms shouldn’t be longer than around 20 years, and supports the rescheduling and potential full legalization of cannabis.

In the Ballotpedia survey, Shales—who holds a master’s degree from Notre Dame Seminary—calls Abraham Lincoln and Malcolm X his personal heroes. And he’s repeatedly denounced Scalise for not standing up to Trump. “1 of the reasons I’m running against Steve Scalise is because he lacks the courage to stand up to Trump’s foolishness,” he posted on X.

Margueritte Swanson withdrew from the race.

SUMMARY: Randall Arrington is a Navy vet and political science Ph.D. running a pro-Trump campaign. Ross Shales is an Army vet and anti-Trump Republican who’s worked in insurance and education. Frankie Hyers does not have any party affiliation and is interested in civic engagement and addressing flaws in our electoral system. Mel Manuel is a progressive Democratic candidate who is a current member of the Democratic State Central Committee as well as the co-director of Queer Northshore, director of operations for the Louisiana Abortion Fund, and a founding member of the St. Tammany Library Alliance. Steve Scalise, the incumbent in this race, is a pro-Trump Republican and major player in the Republican Party who has close ties with Israel.

U. S. Representative
2nd Congressional District

Troy A. Carter, Sr. (Democrat)
Devin Davis (Democrat)
Devin Lance Graham (Republican)
Christy Lynch (Republican)
Shondrell Perrilloux (Republican)

We have covered Troy Carter in more extensive detail than we have most politicians. We even did his birth chart in the April 2021 guide. When he took over this seat from Cedric Richmond, we wrote all about his nearly indistinguishable qualities from his opponent Karen Carter Peterson, and also that our predictions that he wouldn’t rock the boat have mostly held true. Over the past year of Israeli genocide in Palestine, there have been campaigns and phone zaps to urge Troy Carter to call for a ceasefire, though his sentiments have matched President Biden’s empty and insincere calls for Hamas to accept a deal (which they have agreed to accept, and Israel has denied), and most recently posting remembrances for the “brutal terrorist attack on Israel” last October 7.

What has Troy Carter done in this office since being elected? He has sponsored a number of decent bills, including protection for people seeking and providing abortions, providing dental vision and hearing for people on Medicare, funding for breast cancer research, regulating bump stocks like machine guns, and other fairly standard Democratic policy points.

Carter is a member of the Blockchain Caucus in Congress, “who believe in the future of blockchain technology.”

Carter is the incumbent and the biggest fundraiser, with over $1 million in campaign donations, and therefore the obvious frontrunner. He has the backing of established Louisiana Democrats such as the party itself, Gary Chambers, Jr., Delisha Boyd, Davante Lewis (a surprising endorsement from someone who also was a long-shot in his own statewide race going up against an established candidate), as well as beloved New Orleans rapper Juvenile. Carter also posted a chummy picture with Senator John Fetterman—who met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has made his support for Israel a centerpiece in his political identity—as well as put out a statement on “peaceful protests” in the wake of nationwide campus protests in solidarity with Palestine.

Devin Davis is from the Greater New Orleans area, and his campaign website says that his grandfather “died of cancer he contracted from having to work at an oil refinery.” His site lists three pillars for his campaign: Repair, Rebuild, Restore. These three pillars are fleshed out with an extensive policy platform which includes housing justice, immediate climate action, protecting immigrants, “ceasefire, an end to occupation, and restricting arms sales” to Israel, among many others. Many of these points signal specific legislation and policy Davis would support. Davis is also supporting the Workers’ Bill of Rights, which is also on this ballot (see below). He has gone before the City Council to question Entergy’s infrastructure and investments, and he regularly posts on social media about the need to harden our grid in preparation of storms.

He is endorsed by Voters Organized to Educate (where he serves as their director of political operations), Sunrise Movement New Orleans, and Democratic Socialists of America New Orleans. He previously ran for 93rd Representative District against Royce Duplessis earlier this year as a part of the “Blue Reboot” slate of candidates.

In his Voters Organized to Educate survey responses, Davis advocates for the right to vote for everyone, even those convicted of crimes, ending prison-based gerrymandering, legalizing cannabis, supporting restorative justice practices (“by amending the JAG-Byrne program”), advocating for a nationwide program to provide universal access to prekindergarten and kindergarten as well as Medicare for All, and more.

Davis has been asking incumbent Troy Carter for a debate, but Carter has refused to participate.

Republican real estate broker Devin Lance Graham previously ran for U.S. Senate in 2022 and for Louisiana’s 6th Congressional district seat in 2018. He vows to work with Trump (assuming both are elected), secure funding for infrastructure including a new Mississippi River bridge near Baton Rouge, and protect the Second Amendment. His website includes violent rhetoric from the 2024 Republican Party Platform, calling for mass deportations, denouncing “the migrant invasion,” and pledging to “keep men out of women’s sports” and “deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.”

On X, he recently reposted a post claiming “JFK was killed for trying to expose the same crooks Trump is now exposing,” posted by a user simply called White Man, and has shared plenty of other right wing content.

Republican Christy Lynch is running on a fairly typical 2024 conservative platform, down to the “Make America Great Again” slogan and Trump silhouette bat signal on her campaign website. She wants to “close the border,” support manufacturing, end taxes on tips and Social Security, and promote “school choice” while banning “sexualized conversations with our children.” Lynch has been endorsed by the Republican Party of Louisiana. Her slogan appears to be “conservative votes rock” and her campaign site uses a “.rocks” web domain.

She’s worked as an accountant and taught college classes in accounting. She’s on the Orleans Parish Board of Election Supervisors and is president of the Huntlee Village Neighborhood Association in Algiers, where she was involved in opposing bike lanes on MacArthur Boulevard.

Lynch is the founder and president of the Greater New Orleans Republican Women, a group that uses the slogan “Keeping Louisiana Red Hot.”

“Don’t cancel our men,” she writes in her platform, without further explanation.

Shondrell Perrilloux is a current Republican Executive Committee Member at Large from St. John the Baptist Parish. Perrilloux ran for Justice of the Peace in 2020 but was disqualified because she hadn’t finished making restitution payments in an earlier case. In 2011, she was convicted of issuing worthless checks for a total of $9,100. Because this is a felony, and she hadn’t finished paying out her sentence, it disqualified her from the race. Perrilloux filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and 2020.

She was elected president of the St. John the Baptist Parish chapter of the NAACP in 2020; according to her campaign website, “Because of her desire to promote inclusion, love and passion for the people within her district, Ms. Perrilloux changed her party affiliation to Republican while still President of the NAACP to promote unity.”

Prior to becoming a Republican, Perrilloux donated to a Democratic candidate for judge, and has also made donations to the state Republican party and her own campaign.

On the “Meet Shondrell” portion of her campaign site, she notes that “She is a fearless candidate and the perfect age 45 yrs. old. By election season, she will be 46 years old,” which, if nothing else, is a reminder that life does not end in your 20s.

Perrilloux lists civil rights and social justice among her priorities, is against cuts to Social Security and Medicaid and, according to posts on her Facebook page, she supported both the recent port strike and the 2024 30-day Communications Workers of America (CWA) strike against AT&T. Lest anyone think that she is secretly a pro-union Democrat in MAGA clothing, her Instagram account includes a reel featuring a photo of her and Governor Jeff Landry set to Sam Cooke’s “A Change is Gonna Come,” which is a lot to unpack. Perrilloux’s platform is also full of typical right-wing talking points and dog whistles. Among other things, Perrilloux is pro-Israel, anti-LGBTQIA+, anti-immigrant, and wants to “build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country — all made in America.”

SUMMARY: Devin Lance Graham is a serial candidate and pro-Trump Republican. Christy Lynch is an accountant who’s active in the local GOP and supportive of Trump. Troy Carter, the Democratic incumbent, has sponsored several bills on standard Democrat policy points and has the support of many in the state and national Democratic Party, but toes the party line on Israel. Devin Davis is a progressive candidate with an extensive policy platform who has been endorsed by Voters Organized to Educate, Sunrise Movement New Orleans, and Democratic Socialists of America New Orleans. Shondrell Perrilloux is a former Democrat and current pro-Trump Republican whose platform, aside from support for unions, is typical of the other right-wing candidates.

Judge, Court of Appeal 4th Circuit
1st District, Division E

Monique G. Morial (Unopposed)²

Judge 2nd City Court

E. “Teena” Anderson-Trahan (Unopposed)³

Clerk 2nd City Court

Lisa Ray Diggs (Unopposed)⁴

Constable 2nd City Court

Edwin M. Shorty Jr. (Unopposed)⁵

Member of School
Board District 1

Leila J. Eames (Unopposed)⁶

Member of School Board
District 2

Gabriela Biro (Democrat)
Eric J. Jones (Democrat)
Chan Tucker (Democrat)

The recipient of endorsements from New Orleans DSA, Greater New Orleans AFL-CIO, Forum for Equality, and the United Teachers of New Orleans (UTNO) labor union, Gabriela Biro is, in her own words, “a working mom, a hairstylist with a finger on the pulse of the community” whose “commitment to education is driven solely by a desire to support our students and improve our schools.” In both her work and community activism, Biro has taken the time to speak with hundreds of parents in New Orleans to learn about their concerns with education in the city. Biro’s priorities, as listed on her campaign website, include fair pay, comprehensive benefits, and strong union support for teachers and staff; promotion of inclusive policies; combating corruption and protecting the integrity of public schools; and advocating for a safe and supportive learning environment for students. Her answers to the 2024 Orleans Parish School Board Member Candidate Survey conducted by Voters Organized to Educate (VOTE) are detailed and thoughtful, underlining Biro’s commitment to students, teachers, and the community writ large in New Orleans. In addition to the priorities outlined in her official campaign materials, in the VOTE survey Biro also emphasizes the need for the Orleans Parish School Board (OSPB) to have more authority over New Orleans public schools, provides evidence for charter schools benefiting only a privileged few, and advocates for the implementation of mental health and social services in New Orleans schools. Biro is opposed to the new state requirement to display the Ten Commandments in schools as well as Gov. Jeff Landry’s GATOR school voucher system, stating that “it undermines public education by diverting funds intended for public schools. Allowing taxpayer money to flow to private religious schools directly challenges the First Amendment’s principle of separation of church and state. This tactic has been promoted by those seeking to dismantle public education in the U.S., and we must be vigilant in protecting our public school system.” Among Biro’s many other priorities are to provide a safe environment for transgender students in New Orleans schools, simplify the OneApp process, and to address the “School-to-Prison Pipeline.” According to Biro, “While our school system may not be able to change the material conditions of these children’s lives, we can provide support with a whole-child approach. I envision wraparound services through community schools as a way to address the issues faced by students vulnerable to the ‘School-to-Prison Pipeline.’ Additionally, I advocate for restorative justice practices over traditional disciplinary measures, fostering understanding and growth instead of punishment.”

Eric J. Jones previously ran for this position unsuccessfully in 2020, when we noted his ties to Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member and former Teach for America exec Kira Orange Jones and long ties to New Orleans education, including as a teacher. We also pointed out the somewhat bizarre end to his role on the board of Mary D. Coghill Charter School, when he was accused of improperly telling teachers not to give out “F” grades and receiving about $600 in expense reimbursements without proper documentation.

Jones says he’s running to address issues “including teacher shortage and retention, low performing charter schools” and the erosion of neighborhood schools. He told VOTE he wants to see more schools under direct district control, as opposed to charter schools, and more students going to school in their own neighborhoods. He also advocates for social workers and more mental health resources in schools.

Chan Tucker is an engineer and Entergy executive who serves as parent representative on his kids’ charter school board. “In my job, I’m used to addressing the crisis of power outages,” he said on his campaign site. “When schools are failing, it might not be as obvious, but it’s just as critical. We can’t afford for our children’s futures to go dark and have their intellectual power and future shut off.”

Tucker says he wants to use his “management and fiscal experience” to ensure every student gets the education they deserve. In general, Tucker cites his experience as a business leader, parent, and mentor to kids and junior Entergy staff but doesn’t offer a lot of detail about his plans for the School Board. At the time of publication, he hadn’t filled out the Ballotpedia or VOTE candidate surveys.

SUMMARY: Eric J. Jones is an educator who left a charter school board amid controversy. Chan Tucker is an Entergy engineering exec and parent who touts his business experience. Gabriela Biro, through her own research and advocacy and from talking with hundreds of parents across New Orleans, has developed a comprehensive, progressive platform outlining how to improve New Orleans schools for the benefit of both students and teachers; Biro also has the endorsements of New Orleans DSA, Greater New Orleans AFL-CIO, Forum for Equality, and the United Teachers of New Orleans (UTNO) labor union.

Member of School Board
District 3

Olin G. Parker (Unopposed)⁷

Member of School Board
District 4

Donaldo R. Batiste (Democrat)
KaTrina Chantelle Griffin (Democrat)

Incumbent Donaldo R. Batiste worked for decades as an educator, first as a classroom teacher, then as an administrator, in Louisiana and later in Illinois. He’s also a professor in the Department of Education at the University of Holy Cross and has held this School Board seat since 2022, when he was appointed to replace a board member moving out of state.

He’s campaigning as an advocate of “innovation” in schools, which is sometimes a euphemism for charter schools. However, he has been somewhat critical of the charter-dominated system, calling for more OPSB-run schools and a renewed focus on neighborhood schools. He also pledges to work with the City Council, state legislature, businesses, parents, and community members to secure financial and other support for the school system.

During his time as school superintendent in Waukegan, Illinois, Batiste faced some criticism for his response to allegations of inappropriate conduct by school employees, including an alleged “love letter” from a security guard to a 15-year-old student, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2015. Batiste also discussed what he called “several unfortunate instances of employees allegedly touching students in inappropriate manners” in a Superintendent’s Bulletin awkwardly titled “A Touchy Situation,” according to the Tribune.

When Batiste retired from the Waukegan school district the next year, a Tribune columnist criticized him for accepting—and the local school board for approving—a $1,500 payment to cover his health insurance until he started a new job, despite him having been amply compensated during his time at the district and into retirement. In 2023, Batiste collected more than $94,000 from the Illinois Teacher Retirement System and more than $63,000 from the Teacher Retirement System of Louisiana, as well as a salary between $25,000 and $100,000 from Holy Cross, according to ethics filings.

KaTrina Chantelle Griffin is membership manager at WWOZ and has been active in organizations like the National Black MBA Association, National Association of University Women, and American Cancer Society.

She’s a parent of two New Orleans public school graduates and has also mentored middle school and high school students and worked to raise $200,000 in scholarships at local universities. She has served as a community-police mediator with the Office of the Independent Police Monitor and has run her own business strategy consulting firm.

Griffin says she wants to help students understand “what self-confidence and determination can accomplish.” A big part of her platform appears to be tackling truancy, earning her an endorsement from District Attorney Jason Williams, though it’s unclear from her platform exactly what she’d do about the issue. Her public platform is otherwise light on detail. She’s called for “transparency, goal-setting, and regular progress reviews” in the school system. She doesn’t appear to have responded to candidate surveys from Ballotpedia or VOTE.

In addition to Williams, Griffin is endorsed by former U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, Councilmember JP Morrell, and Democrats for Education Reform, a pro-charter school group.

SUMMARY: Donaldo Batiste is an experienced educator who has been critical of the charter-only system. KaTrina Chantelle Griffin is a WWOZ exec active in various community groups.

Member of School Board
District 5

Katherine Baudouin (Unopposed) ⁸

Member of School Board
District 6

Carlos Luis Zervigon (Unopposed)⁹

Member of School Board
District 7

Nolan Marshall (Unopposed)¹⁰

Amendments & Propositions

CA No. 1 (Act No. 408, 2024 – HB 300)
Provides relative to federal proceeds from alternative energy production

Do you support an amendment to require that federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf alternative or renewable energy production be deposited into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund? (Amends Article VII, Section 10.2(E)(1))

Since 2006, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund (CPRF) has evolved to be a dedicated cash pile for receiving annual federal payouts proportionate to Louisiana’s offshore oil and gas leasing and production revenue from the prior year. This funds the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, which has completed over 150 coastal restoration projects that aim to stabilize coastal erosion, construct barrier islands, preserve wetlands, improve hurricane resiliency, and strengthen flood mitigation. Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Securities Act (GOMESA), Louisiana and other coastal states became eligible for federal revenue sharing for oil and gas production.

This constitutional amendment, introduced by Republican State Representative and 2024 Clean Energy Champion Joseph Orgeron, seeks to expand the funding mechanism to include alternative energy sources like wind, tidal, solar, geothermic, and other types of “green” energy. However, Congress has not yet expanded GOMESA to include alternative energy revenue production, though it’s speculated that federal law will follow the ratification of the state constitutional amendment as it has done previously. Despite the uncertainty of federal expansion of the revenue-sharing model to alternative energy, the amendment received bipartisan support throughout its journey in the State House and Senate. State Representative Mandie Landry, who backs the amendment, explained on Instagram, “This money hasn’t started coming in yet (🤞🏼🤞🏼) but we hope it will soon and when it does the first dollar should be spent on protecting the coast.”

Compared to the $73 billion in revenue generated by oil and gas, alternative energy is expected to be much less (though still) valuable. The Deepwater Horizon settlement cash is dwindling (projected to empty in 2031) and the CPRF will need to access any federal funding that it’s eligible to receive. Louisiana already missed a deposit opportunity last year from an offshore wind lease and the U.S. Department of the Interior announced plans for another wind lease sale. If the constitutional amendment fails to pass, then it will be an even greater challenge to secure funding that may be increasingly difficult to come by from state budgets.

SUMMARY: While somewhat preemptive, the constitutional amendment expands the opportunities for dedicated funding to protect our state’s vulnerable coastal communities and ecosystems. Vote “Yes.”

Orleans Parish Ballot Measures

Parishwide HRC Amendment No. 1 of 2
Amends Art. VI, Sec. 6-201(2) – CC

Shall Article VI of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans be amended to establish a Housing Trust Fund dedicated exclusively to ensuring the availability of affordable housing within the City, and to require an annual appropriation of at least two percent of the City’s annual general fund to the Housing Trust Fund as provided in Ord. No. 29828, M.C.S.?

This ballot measure seeks to amend the Home Rule Charter of New Orleans with a proposition to establish a dedicated Housing Trust Fund, a method of allocating steady revenue put toward specific housing initiatives. The fund is not creating a new tax, but will earmark 2% of the City’s general spending budget, which could potentially generate $17 million annually for housing programs, specifically financing three priorities: creating affordable rentals, preserving existing homes, and supporting new homeownership opportunities. According to Housing NOLA’s 2024 Report Card, the Housing Trust Fund will outperform a property tax millage created in 1991 that only generated less than $4 million annually, which voters denied renewing in 2021 due to lack of oversight and potential misuse for other city priorities.

Advocates addressed this by forming a City Council Advisory Committee that will decide how to split up the dedicated funding, with a minimum of 15% of program funding invested into each of the three priorities. A fixed 10% will go to City-contracted program stewards, Finance Authority of New Orleans and the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, and 5% will be set aside for housing emergencies. The City Council Advisory Committee will be comprised of seven members: a representative from the Mayor’s Office, the City Council, the Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance (GNOHA), Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center (which is advocating for the measure), and Southeast Louisiana Legal Services, and at least one community member with lived experience being unhoused or living in affordable housing. The City Council Advisory Committee and the program stewards will meet yearly to present proposed allocations based on residential needs and market conditions to the City Council for review and approval.

Supporters of the Housing Trust Fund have laid out its potential benefits. Most obviously, it fortifies housing funding regardless of changes to the City Council. This type of consistent funding is a necessity to forge a path to recovery out of the ongoing housing crisis, tackling common resident concerns like blighted homes and high insurance premiums. The Housing Trust Fund can support new homeowners purchasing rehabilitated homes and subsidize the fortified roof program, hopefully easing financial burdens of homeownership that are pricing out residents from the city. Councilmember Lesli Harris of District B tweeted, “These funds give our community access to affordable housing, renovations, and even money to purchase your first home.” Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative, in their October column published in ANTIGRAVITY, describes the Housing Trust Fund as “an overdue baby step forward,” though cautions that “its anticipated amount ($17 million annually) is insufficient for all New Orleanians needing housing help.” Readers can learn more at yestonolahousing.com.

If the amendment fails to pass, the City Council will still aim to pass a less restrictive funding policy called the Affordable and Workforce Housing Fund (the Backup Fund). According to a report from the Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR), the Backup Fund allows the City Council the flexibility to determine funding priorities, including housing, City employee salaries, and more. The Housing Trust Fund would be the most restrictive dedication for housing funds of its kind, setting New Orleans apart as either a pioneer or an outlier. BGR has voiced opposition to the Housing Trust Fund, but has said the Backup Fund has “weaknesses in planning, administration and accountability.”

SUMMARY: Especially during times when funding is uncertain, having the City invest existing revenue toward a basic human right like housing should be a no-brainer. Vote “Yes.”

Parishwide HRC Amendment No. 2 of 2
Amends Art. II, Sec. 2-202 – CC

Shall Article II, Section 2-202 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans be amended to include rights for workers, as described in Ord. No. 29864 M.C.S., among the rights contained in the municipal bill of rights?

Councilmember Helena Moreno is sponsoring this amendment called the “Workers’ Bill of Rights.” The proposed amendment adds labor-focused language to the Parishwide Home Rule Charter that codifies four priorities: a living wage, comprehensive paid leave, access to health care benefits, and “the right to organize and associate freely in pursuit of workplace and economic justice.” The measure does not imply any immediate changes to the City budget or code enforcement.

The amendment is one of three parts of a larger workers’ rights campaign initiated by local dollar store workers who named rising rent and experiencing trauma from retail crime as motivators for the movement. Step Up Louisiana’s presentation to the City Council in March cited a study that measures a 20-year life expectancy gap between affluent and impoverished neighborhoods in New Orleans, which disproportionately impacts Black residents who are less able to take sick leave and face barriers to health care.

However, the measure is weakened by state preemption laws that supersede local code on minimum wage and paid leave. Still, it’s a rebuke against a slate of anti-union bills currently pending in the legislature and why the campaign includes the other two strategies to establish a workers’ commission that can process worker complaints and develop a “Healthy Workplace Program” with the Louisiana Department of Health that would grade businesses who opt-in for how well they treat their employees.

Summary: This policy is about establishing a foundation for workers’ rights and a starting point to begin closing the gap in health disparities. It would carry forward the momentum of an energized year of union organizing that will hopefully continue onward. Vote “Yes.”

Lakeshore Crime Prevention District
$420 Parcel Fee – CC – 4 Yrs.

Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual fee on each parcel of land in the Lakeshore Crime Prevention District (“District”), within the boundaries delineated by La. R.S. 33:9091.7(B), in an amount not to exceed four hundred twenty dollars ($420) per parcel per year, with the fee amount as determined by duly adopted Board resolution, for a term of and not to exceed four (4) years, commencing on January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2028, which is estimated to generate approximately $275,940 annually, to be used exclusively for aiding in crime prevention within the District, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of personnel and services provided by the New Orleans Police Department?

The Lakeshore Crime Prevention District covers an area between Allen Toussaint Boulevard and Lakeshore Drive near Canal Boulevard, as shown on this official map. It was created in 2004 for purposes including “private patrol services, security cameras, and other products or services reasonably designed to enhance the security of district residents.”

This measure would renew for four years a fee of at most $420 per parcel “estimated to generate approximately $275,940 annually” to fund these activities, according to officials. The district spends the vast bulk of its budget on patrols from Pinnacle Security, according to its latest financial statements.

As we said the last time this measure came up for renewal in 2020, there’s minimal evidence that these crime prevention districts serve a useful purpose. A study by the New Orleans Office of the Inspector General back in 2013 found that such districts seem to have lower rates of property crime, but no significant difference in violent crime or murder rates.

“Evaluators also examined crime trends before and after the formation of five new security districts and found no clear trends… Furthermore, security districts were only available to those able to pay additional taxes for increased services, which raises the question of whether public safety should be treated as a private good at the neighborhood level, or as a public good at the city-wide level,” the OIG warned at the time.

In an ongoing lawsuit against another security district, a young Black man alleges he and friends were illegally stopped and held at gunpoint in 2020 by officers of another security district, including an officer who had been fired from the NOPD for lying in a use-of-force investigation. The friends were looking for a lost chihuahua and had allegedly even stopped to ask the security patrol for help finding the dog before getting pulled over. According to court documents, the officers allegedly justified the stop in part by pointing out that the BMW the young men were traveling in was registered in New Orleans East, far from where they were stopped Uptown—a perplexing explanation in a city where people generally think nothing of driving across town to visit friends, family, or favorite businesses and restaurants.

While the case continues to wend its way through the federal court system, it’s a reminder that these districts can function, in part, to reinforce neighborhood boundaries, segregation, and paranoia about outsiders.

SUMMARY: Say no to privatized police.

Mid-City Security District
Parcel Fee – CC – 8 Yrs.

Shall the City of New Orleans levy an annual flat fee on each parcel within the Mid-City Security District (“District”), as delineated by La. R.S. 33:9091.14(B), with its amount not to exceed the following: $195 per unimproved parcel, single-family, two-family, three-family, four-family, townhouse, or condominium dwelling; $600 per parcel with 5-9 rental units; $1,000 per parcel with 10-19 rental units; $2,000 per parcel with 20-39 rental units; $4,000 per parcel with 40+ rental units; $150 per parcel subject to La. Const. Art. VII, Section 18; or $500 per commercial parcel, with any parcel used for commercial and residential purposes considered commercial if comprised of <4 residential units and residential if comprised of 4+ residential units, with the amount of the fee as requested by board resolution, for eight (8) years, beginning January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2032, which is estimated to generate approximately $1,235,219 annually, to be used exclusively for promoting and encouraging security within the District, except a 1% City collection fee, and if used for additional law enforcement or security personnel and their services, such personnel and services shall be supplemental to and not in lieu of personnel and services provided by the New Orleans Police Department?

The Mid-City Security District similarly provides patrols in its section of Mid-City bordered by Broad Street and City Park Avenue, and portions of I-10 and Tulane Avenue, as shown on this map. This ballot measure would provide it with taxpayer funding through 2032, according to a complex formula that would charge different levels of fees for single-family houses and small apartment buildings, larger apartment buildings and complexes, and commercial establishments. It’s estimated it would bring in about $1,200,000 per year.

A similar ballot measure was before voters last year, which was defeated, leaving in place an existing, simpler parcel fee structure. That funding mechanism will expire this year, unless voters approve this new measure, according to the district’s most recent financial statement. Like many other such districts, the Mid-City Security District spends the majority of its budget on “patrol and security services” and other security-related costs.

“Slightly over 90% is spent on patrol and security services such as security lights and a surveillance camera program sponsored by the MCSD which is managed by the [Mid-City Neighborhood Organization (MCNO)],“ according to the District. “Other costs are for such items as insurance, accounting, legal fees, and other operating expenses.”

SUMMARY: Say no to privatized police.

Election Info

voterportal.sos.la.gov

The deadline to request a mail/absentee ballot is November 1 by 4:30 p.m (other than military and overseas voters).

The deadline for the registrar of voters to receive a mail/absentee ballot is November 4 by 4:30 p.m. (other than military and overseas voters).

Tuesday election day voting hours are 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Early Voting

nola.gov/early-voting

Early voting for this election began on October 18 and ends on October 29, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (excluding Sunday, October 20 and Sunday, October 27).

City Hall
1300 Perdido St. #1W24 70112

Algiers Courthouse
225 Morgan St. RM#105 70114

Treme Community Center
900 North Villere St. 70116

Voting Machine Warehouse
8870 Chef Menteur Highway 70127

Lake Vista Community Center
6500 Spanish Fort Blvd. 70124

If donations aren’t your thing, you can also support ANTIGRAVITY simply by signing up for our monthly newsletter—which includes early access to each issue and other info—at the top of our home page.

This voter education guide is published primarily as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement of any candidate or proposition by ANTIGRAVITY Magazine.

Presidential Electors

U. S. Representative 1st Congressional District

U. S. Representative 2nd Congressional District

Judge, Court of Appeal 4th Circuit 1st District, Division E

Judge 2nd City Court

Clerk 2nd City Court

Constable 2nd City Court

Member of School Board District 1

Member of School Board District 2

Member of School Board District 3

Member of School Board District 4

Member of School Board District 5

Member of School Board District 6

Member of School Board District 7