Suchergebnisse

P. 1: Camden/N.J.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, November 15, 1983. - 1984. - III,123 S., Ill., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-58) ; (29-117 O); P. 2: Fresno/Cal.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, December 2, 1983. - 1984. - IV,223 S., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-59) ; (29-377 O); P. 3: Birmingham/Ala.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, December 12, 1983. - 1984. - III,101 S., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-60) ; (29-521 O); P. 4: Shreveport/La.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, December 13, 1983. - 1984. - IV,149 S., Ill., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-61) ; (30-212 O); P. 5: Brooklyn/N.Y.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, December 19, 1983. - 1984. - III,165 S., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-69) ; (30-545 O); P. 6: Pittsburgh/Pa.: 98. Congress, 1. Session, December 21, 1983. - 1984. - III,138 S., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-78) ; (31-404 O); P. 7: Washington/D.C.: 98. Congress, 2. Session, March 6, 1984. - 1984. - IV,347 S., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-88) ; (34-543 O); P. 8: The national perspective: 98. Congress, 2. Session, March 1, 1984. - 1984. - III,187 S., graph. Darst., Tab. - (Serial No. 98-84) ; (32-773 O)

Bossier City's long history of trying to count coup
on Shreveport for once might serve it well, with an opportunity presenting
itself through a blunder by the latter.

For decades, Bossier City leaders have burdened themselves
with a psychological inferiority complex relating to their larger and
better-known (and, to many outsiders, with a more easily-pronounceable name) neighbor
across the Red River. Feeling overshadowed, they have pursued policies
attempting to make their city stand out from, if not look better than,
Shreveport.

Usually,
it has led to undesirable consequences. Leaders chafed when no
comprehensive hospital located in Bossier City, so they decided to build the
government-run Bossier Medical Center. That worked out until it became apparent
that Willis-Knighton Systems would come to town with an initial offer allegedly
for $42 million to buy BMC, whereupon egos kicked in and city leaders refused
it. WKS then built its own, drove BMC numbers steeply into the red, and in a
short time the city had a fire sale of the facility, which no longer operates,
for $18 million. (Two city councilors from that era, no party Jeff Darby
and Democrat Bubba
Williams, still serve on the Council.)

That was just an opportunity missed, as opposed to
the current money pit that is the Brookshire Grocery Arena. Built just after
the BMC debacle for tens of millions more dollars than at first contemplated,
it has consistently lost money year after year. But city leaders wanted a
modern indoor arena to contrast with what Shreveport had available (the Hirsch Memorial
Coliseum, which technically isn't even the city's but is part of a nonprofit
organization), so rather than wait on a nongovernment entity to build one it
took the plunge, to taxpayers' everlasting regret.

Typically, it has been the heavy hand of
government intervention, spending more to bulk up, that Bossier City has turned
to in order to draw its intended contrast which then backfired, stubbornly
resisting the idea that a government that spent less with lower taxation and
fees would create more incentive for people to live and work there. To
paraphrase Edmund Burke, to make people love their city, the city ought to
be lovely.

Now there presents a way to do that with a much more
valid dose of government intervention, courtesy of Shreveport's
impending jettison of a total smoking ban at its casinos. Earlier this week
it changed its ordinance
regarding smoking to require just a quarter of the area of a casino, boat or
land, to be nonsmoking. It's uncertain whether Republican Mayor Tom
Arceneaux will veto it or, if so, that veto would be overridden as it
passed on a 4-2 vote.

Practically speaking, that means there is no ban
at all. No technology can prevent smoke from wafting around nonsmoking areas.
In essence, this puts the facilities off-limits to anybody who suffers
physiologically from having to breathe smoke.

Shreveport thusly becomes the first jurisdiction in
the country to reverse itself on a smoking ban. The rationale for the declining
city, facing sharp population loss and revenue retrenchment as a result, to do
this was the restriction hurt the bottom line of the city's casinos and therefore
related city tax collections. Theoretically, one could make an argument that enforcement
of nonsmoking could do this, for gambling is an addictive behavior like smoking
with a relatively high association between the two, Thus, a smoking ban disproportionately
could chase away chumps.

Yet the data
don't indicate as such. Smoking bans have gone into place in all of the state's
largest cities for casinos, but changes in revenue in places that did largely
have tracked those located in jurisdictions that continue to allow smoking.
Indeed, a review
of Shreveport and Bossier City markets, with the latter continuing to allow
people to smoke up in casinos, shows no significant difference in revenue changes.

Changes trending down, of course, that have little
to do with smoking and everything
to do with increased competition from Texas but particularly tribal casinos
in Oklahoma. It seems that smoking bans are basically unrelated with revenues because
of a substitution effect. Smokers
tend to be older, less educated, and lower-income compared to nonsmokers,
so it may be that potentially fewer admittances by smokers could be partially
offset by some nonsmokers who then lose more lucre.

Regardless, a deeper civil rights issue remains. A
growing portion of the population suffers from pulmonological conditions where
even a hint of smoke can send them into distress, something they can't control –
as opposed to smoking, which is an entirely voluntary action where consequences
are exported to other people who can avoid these only by curtailing their own
autonomy. In fact, with smoking in the population at nearly half its rate of
two decades ago, the proportions of smokers and people with pulmonological
diseases are about equal.

While argumentation about exportation of smoke
onto others, such as casino employees, that can impact negatively their health
merit investigation as there appears to be some association between someone's
health and breathing in smoke, there is no doubt that a causal mechanism exists
where smoke negatively affects directly some people's pulmonological health. In
essence permitting smoking in any part of a casino denies a portion of the
population the ability to work there, eat there, gamble there, and be
entertained in whatever other way there – meaning smokers are privileged in their
conduct of a voluntary behavior over those who suffer from a disability they
must bear involuntarily.

Decades ago, when mainly in the South and
profusely in Shreveport and Bossier City citizens shamefully were discriminated
against merely for the color of their skin in the conduct of commerce, the U.S.
Congress stepped in and legislated to guarantee that people couldn't be denied commercial
access solely on the basis of that. In our constitutional system, health
matters are governed by states, and local governments if delegated that way by
the states. A statewide ban by Louisiana on smoking in casinos would be best,
but absent that local governments should take up that in order to protect equal
access for vulnerable citizens.

Bossier City instituting a smoking ban in its
casinos would produce a rare instance where the city in trying to distinguish
itself from Shreveport acted on the whole actually to increase its citizens'
autonomy and quality of life. That it hasn't done this to date is to its
discredit, but that's magnified if it fails to act when served this reminder of
the west bank's stupidity.

For Louisiana's Republicans when facing unfavorable
local electoral environments, sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't,
results from elections from this weekend show.

It
worked for Monroe independent Mayor Friday Ellis,
who in facing an electorate about five-eighths black registrants not only won
reelection but expanded his majority. Friday, who is white and while he runs as
an independent has Republican support including that of a fundraising bundling
group designed to steer nationally donations to Republican candidates, bested two
black Democrat candidates, one of whom was Democrat former mayor Jamie Mayo
whom he deposed four years ago.

All that needs to be known about this election
comes from 14 precincts, 11 through 24. With seven-eighths
black registrants in these, Ellis pulled down 37 percent of the vote and
even won two of them. Considering that he ran up majorities in and around 90
percent in precincts just as heavily populated with white registrants, which
also turned out at twice the rate or better than these others, it was no
contest.

Of course, as he had four years ago Ellis had the advantage
of the controversial
Mayo taking up most of the oxygen for black Democrat challengers, who if some
other such quality challenger had emerged might have done better. Still, it was
an impressive performance and potentially a model for white non-Democrats to
follow in black-majority Louisiana jurisdictions.

By
contrast, in a barely plurality white electorate in Caddo Parish,
Republican former Shreveport City Councilor John Nickelson lost to Democrat former
Shreveport chief administrative officer Henry Whitehorn, 53 to 47 percent for
sheriff. As in the Monroe contest, the non-Democrat was white and the Democrat
black, although it was for an open seat.

This
race was the third, after Whitehorn had come out on top last fall in a
runoff by one vote, after Nickelson had led 45 to 35 percent in the general election.
But the runoff had questionable ballots cast, courts ruled, creating an
indeterminate result that necessitated another try.

Nickelson had performed better when turnout had
gone just over 30 percent in the general election, but Whitehorn had closed the
entire gap when turnout fell a couple of points in the runoff. Conventional
wisdom therefore had it that Nickelson would do better the higher the turnout,
although that looked unlikely when Republican former Pres. Donald Trump wrapped up the GOP
presidential nomination before Louisiana held its preference primaries for both
major parties at the same time as spring local elections.

But that didn't matter. In fact, nearly half of
registered parish Republicans came out to vote in that primary, which should have
spilled over to help Nickleson. However, nearly two-fifths of Caddo Democrats,
despite Democrat Pres. Joe Biden also
having secured his party's nomination, showed up to vote in that primary.

This did end up helping Nickleson somewhat. In
precincts where whites, the majority of whom are Republicans, made up at least
75 percent of the registrants, turnout was 31 percent, while in those where blacks,
almost all of whom are Democrats, made up at least 75 percent of registrants,
turnout was only 24 percent. (Note that these figures are distortedly low because
early voting isn't included, so they are good only for comparison purposes.) Given
the close balance between the two races in registrations, that would have
favored Nickleson.

Except that racial crossover voting favored
Whitehorn. In those precincts with a large proportion of white registrants,
Nickelson only received 82.4 percent of the vote, while Whitehorn in those with
a large proportion of black registrants snared 95.6 percent of that vote.
Compared to historical norms, Nickelson underperformed by a couple of points
among blacks and Whitehorn overperformed by a few points among whites. These
made the difference.

Clearly both campaigns made an intense effort, so
there might not have been anything more Nickleson could have done. Whitehorn's
extensive law enforcement background with Nickelson not having any, controversial
legislation that Nickelson had introduced that led some to question his Second
Amendment commitment, and a blunder
late in the campaign where Nickelson's wife used her position in a
nonprofit to electioneer may have caused his loss to be set in stone.

Still, Ellis' triumph shows Louisiana conservative
candidates do have ways of winning elections even in electoral environments
usually considered unfruitful.

It's not too early to declare some winners
and losers in Louisiana's state elections this cycle, primarily because so
many contests already have been decided or wrote on the wall what will come in next
month's runoff elections.

WINNER: Jeff Landry. The Republican attorney
general wiped out all opposition in the gubernatorial race, in the most
impressive display of the 1974 Constitution era. He became the first first-time
candidate ever to win without a runoff and joining only Democrat Edwin Edwards
(1983), Republican Mike Foster (1999), and Republican Bobby Jindal (2007 and
2011) in pulling off the feat of a general election triumph. That he did so
bodes well for his powers of persuasion in herding the Legislature, which
almost certainly will deliver supermajorities for his party, towards delivering
on an agenda that looks to be the most transformative in a century.

WINNER: Billy Nungesser.
The chattering class (see Loser below) thought he could give Landry a run for
his money and were somewhat surprised when the Republican passed on that race
to win reelection as lieutenant governor. Perhaps he knew something that other
like GOP Treas. John Schroder
and GOP state Sen. Sharon Hewitt
didn't, that Landry would win. His big win keeps him in office while others
retire or hope to bag jobs in the Landry Administration.

WINNER: Jefferson Parish GOP legislators.
Too often, a majority of this group abandoned a conservative agenda in favor of
licking the boots of Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, which
made a few of them targets in their reelection campaigns of conservative insurgents.
Those challenged all survived, from narrowly to easily. Now they conveniently can
flip-flop to back Landry's agenda (with one exception: closed primaries that
threaten their continued service) since they know they can't stop it and thus
try to keep their political careers alive.

LOSER: Louisiana Democrats. The party's
ruling white powerbrokers ran a poor gubernatorial candidate in the form of former
cabinet member Shawn Wilson, knowing they had to have some black face to head
the ticket to stave off extremist left insurgent black competitors. The
inevitability of Landry also discouraged turnout, dooming any chance to prevent
Republicans from doing no worse in legislative contests that ensured retention
of a supermajority. Landry's win and separate Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education campaigns that also weren't close now gives the GOP a commanding 9-2
edge on that body. And Republicans after Nov. 18 will have swept all statewide
offices, after all but one of these contests put them within a few points of
winning outright in the general election, if not Landry and Nungesser winning
then.

Two other indicators demonstrate the reality of this
rout. A white Democrat minister named Danny Cole raised and spent no money in
running for governor, conducting his campaign solely through free social media
and personal appearances, yet grabbed 3 percent of the vote, such was the dissatisfaction
with Wilson. And in Caddo Parish, for sheriff former Shreveport city councilor
Republican John Nickelson racked up
45 percent of the vote against black Democrat former Shreveport chief
administrative officer Henry Whitehorn's 35 percent, even though Nickelson has
no law enforcement experience and Whitehorn has decades of it, in a parish
with a solid Democrat plurality and bare white plurality. Statewide Democrats
had zero coattails, and the results sends the strongest signal yet that unless
it abandons its far-left agenda it will have no impact on policy-making on
state issues.

LOSER: Legacy media. Whatever generally left-leaning
newspaper and television outlets did, in terms of story selections trying to
slow Landry or cajoling him to turn out for debates hoping to catch him off guard,
failed. Landry as well as a number of conservative candidates simply ignored
media requests and campaigned emphasizing cutting out intermediaries like the
media – Landry showed up for exactly one of several media-sponsored candidate
forums – by going directly to voters. As a result, the state's chattering class
had almost no influence on election outcomes and face increasing irrelevancy in
trying to shape policy outcomes going forward.

LOSER: Clay Schexnayder.
After four years of serving as House of Representative speaker kissing up to
Edwards on budget and several other major issues, although the dictates of the
GOP supermajority more often pushed policy in a conservative direction, Schexnayder
hoped that this triangulation legacy could retain enough conservatives and capture
enough non-conservatives in the electorate to attain the secretary of state's
office, aided by business-as-usual monied interests, to extend his political
career and set himself up for future advancement. Instead, he finished a dismal
fourth that extinguishes his hopes.

A recent musing about Louisiana population loss
contains a lot bathos, signifying the difficulty, if not unwillingness, that
the state's leftist institutions have in accepting what's plain to everybody
else.

Last week, the Baton Rouge Advocate ran a piece
about the latest 2023 census numbers, which show most Louisiana parishes lost population.
The state as a whole lost over 14,000 people in 2023, bring the total loss from
compared to 2015 to nearly 120,000 even as the country as a whole, and most
states, grew in numbers. In fact, the state's 0.31 percent loss trailed in percentage
terms only New York, and of the seven states that did lose population, four
were among the largest blue states, with purple Pennsylvania barely slipping
and only West Virigina among red states joining Louisiana.

Only Ascension, Beauregard, Bossier, Calcasieu, De
Soto, East Feliciana, Iberville, Lafayette, Livingston, St. Bernard, St.
Tammany, Tangipahoa, Vermillion, and West Baton Rouge gained – a few barely –
and none over one percent. Metropolitan statistical areas were a mixed bag:
energy-intensive areas Lafayette and Lake Charles and northshore Hamond and Slidell-Covington-Mandeville,
plus Baton Rouge eked out gains but Shreveport-Bossier City, Monroe,
Alexandria, Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, and New Orleans-Metairie shrunk. In
fact, New Orleans led the country in MSA slumping at 1.15 percent, while Houma was
fifth worst at 0.85 percent, Alexandria 16th worst at 0.60 percent,
Shreveport 36th worst at 0.43 percent, and Monroe 46th worst
at 0.34 percent. Hammond's 0.92 percent growth was best in the state and 92nd
best nationwide.

Louisiana's rural areas fared even worse than its
urban, while overall suburban areas held their own. That 50 parishes lost
population flummoxed the Advocate, which went on an extensive expedition
in search of explanations why since the 2020 census this had happened.

Natural disasters clearly had a role, but this
masked some notable divergences. For example, Lake Charles was coming back from
its travails, but Houma wasn't. And obviously a lot of places hadn't had
adverse weather events strike them in the past three years.

So, setting aside idiosyncratic elements, it had
to be policy, and to her credit Alison Plyer, the longtime chief demographer of
New Orleans' Data Center, hit upon that when queried by the reporter. But, as students
will tend to do in answering essay questions, they may guess correctly right
answer but provide the wrong reasons to explain it.

Plyer fell victim to this in two ways, although
one was only a partial bogey. She observed the poorer health statistics
reflected by Louisianans compared to almost every other state, which would lead
to earlier deaths offsetting births. Set aside, of course, that this is a temporary
effect; changes in cohort life spans would influence extremely marginally
overall population so long as the birth cohorts remained constant, so an
ongoing fall caused by shorter lifespans would make sense only in the context of
a sudden drop in life expectancy that isn't occurring (even if a relatively
rapid one such as during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic happens, it also
happened elsewhere, so relative change among states would be extremely marginal).

Yet that shouldn't be happening in Louisiana, using
the left's assumptions, because Medicaid
expansion! Now almost eight years old, that was supposed to provide all
sorts of additional health care people were missing to improve their lives. In
reality, a large minority of its new clients years ago simply dropped their private
insurance (or their employers did it when expansion rolled out) to get a new
freebie, so it's not like they didn't have health care insurance already. If,
of course, they could access Medicaid, with its limited providers and a lowest common
denominator approach that degraded the quality of care. And while you can throw
health care at people, you can't make them live healthy lives that would decrease
their health care usage. So, for the extra $450 million or so a year Louisiana
taxpayers pony up to subsidize other people's health care, there's very little
bang for the buck or explanatory power for population loss (if anything,
hanging out a new benefit not available in nearly all of the fastest-growing
states should attract residents).

But Plyer also made a very ignorant statement. Not
her observation that higher educational attainment helps to drive population
growth, but that state taxpayer subsidization falling a third since 2008 on a
per higher education student basis indicates that Louisiana spent less money on
tertiary education. In fact, in fiscal year 2008 $2.766
billion for 201,557 students
was budgeted for higher education or $13,723 per student, while in FY 2024
that will be $3.453 billion for 217,618 students or $15,867 per student, an
increase of 15.6 percent. The hoary and tired contention that Louisiana has "disinvested"
in higher education is an exhausted myth.

Yes, policy is the explanation, but not derived
from the blind alleys in the article. It's very simple: the cause is Democrat Gov.
John Bel Edwards' big spending, tax raising, benefit boosting (such as Medicaid
expansion), social justice pandering regime, insufficiently resisted by a Republican
Legislature short on leadership that only deigned to rein in Edwards' worst
attempted excesses. It discouraged producers from producing, if not their staying
in the state, and encouraged wasteful spending, criminal coddling, and more
people jumping on the wagon. It not
only led to depopulation, but fewer jobs than when he took office, anemic
personal income growth that barely outpaced inflation, crime rates heading
higher at an above average pace, and a coarsening culture that pandered to ideological
special interests.

And, of course, it was the three central cities
with Democrat mayors and solid Democrat majorities on their city councils – New
Orleans, Shreveport (although it now has a GOP mayor), and Alexandria – which were
among the worst performing local jurisdictions. However, notice how Lafayette and Lake Charles, run
by Republicans, bucked the trend.

Those shortcomings are the wages of liberalism and
are the kinds of things that drive people away – but leftist institutions aren't
going to admit that and will try to find any lame excuse to deflect from that. What's
obvious to everybody else they refuse to see, which makes the musings in that
article largely irrelevant, if not entirely counterproductive to reversing the state's
depopulation trend.

Collectively, according to recent campaign finance
reports perhaps the most competitive Louisiana Senate races are happening in
northwest Louisiana, although clarity has begun to emerge in the contests
mainly in Caddo Parish.

Those are the three-candidate Senate District 38
and 39 contests. Less certain in outcome are the paired matchups in sprawling Senate
District 31, which has a plurality of its voters in Caddo and Bossier Parishes,
and District 36, with mainly a Bossier constituency.

The reports filed last week importantly for most of
these candidacies reveal for the first time campaign donations and
expenditures. These give an idea of the relevant potency of a candidacy and the
kinds of supporters it draws, if any.

After qualifying, perhaps the most competitive of
the Caddo contests was thought to be SD 39 of the term-limited Democrat state
Sen. Greg Tarver, with Democrat former Shreveport mayor and two-tern state Rep.
Cedric Glover, Democrat caucus leader state Rep. Sam Jenkins, and Democrat former state
Rep. Barbara Norton all have a go at it. The open seat appears so valuable that
Jenkins and Glover gave up what would appear to have been easy reelections,
where four years from now term limits would have matched one or both up likely
against an incumbent.

However, finance data tell a more lopsided story. Glover
might have had the edge given an almost-uninterrupted quarter-century he has
spent in elective office. Yet he also sometimes has acted as a nonconformist among
Democrats, most recently by crossing party lines and traditional black political
organizations to support
white Republican Shreveport Mayor Tom Arceneaux
in his successful bid.

This contest appears to embody attempted payback. Glover raised only
a few thousand dollars to add little to an almost emptied campaign kitty,
mainly from corporate and political action committee sources although this is
2022 data as he apparently failed to file the report 30 days from an election
on time. Norton,
who in her dozen years in office didn't
exactly distinguish herself has done somewhat better but has spent little
more on campaigning. Rather, most money, over six figures, has poured into Jenkins' campaign, capturing
most of the traditional Democrat dollars – party organizations, activists, and
elected officials; labor; and trial lawyers; plus lots of PAC bucks and a few
GOP donors, and Jenkins has spent far more than his opposition combined on campaigning.
(Not surprisingly, Tarver, who Glover didn't endorse for mayor, endorsed
Jenkins.) This grants him the edge going forward.

SD 38, by contrast, has seen finances headed in a
more predictable direction. Republican state Rep. Thomas Pressly brought home six
figures from traditional GOP allies and PACs. The other traditional
Republican in the race, Chase Jennings,
in the less than a month of running picked up only a
fraction of Pressly's total and disproportionately it seemed came from officials
and congregants of Shreveport Community Church.

Former Democrat senator from the district, now
running as a Republican John Milkovich,
brought in about $75,000
although about half was his own resources. The social conservative but big government
spender acts as the stealth Democrat in the race but didn't receive much from
traditional Democrat sources as he crossed up the party on social issues during
his term. Instead, his donor base reflected an eclectic mix although heavier on
the trial lawyer side. These numbers confirm Pressly as the favorite, although
he might be pushed to a runoff by Milkovich.

Across the river, the heads-up matchups between
Republicans don't have clear favorites. SD 31 presents a classic Bossier
political establishment vs. staunch conservative battle between Mike McConathy and state Rep. Alan Seabaugh. Following the age-old
script, both are social conservatives, although the former has backing from the
diminishing white Democrat base and get-along-go-along Republicans, both of whom
favor bigger government, and has raised this year approaching
$200,000, while the latter has traditional Republican economic conservatives
in his corner and raised
a little less but has much more in campaign coffers.

Interesting also are the outside groups stumping
for each. The state
chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a national group emphasizing limited
government and conservative economics, has endorsed
and spent for Seabaugh. Meanwhile, a dark money group from Baton Rouge, Republican
Patriots Protecting Property Rights run by maverick Republican Scott Wilfong
who often crosses swords with the more conservative state GOP leadership, has
dropped some change on behalf of McConathy.

The reports confirm the closeness and dynamics of
the race. McConathy, who in the past has supported
white Democrats from Bossier Parish's former state Rep. Billy Montgomery
(who late in his career switched to the GOP) up to Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, having
coached basketball at the collegiate level in two places in the district
and is the son of a former Bossier Parish school superintendent, is popular but
Seabaugh has demonstrated campaign prowess time and time again and his
consistent conservatism shown in 13 years at the Legislature has won him many
fans in a heavily-conservative area.

The SD 36 contest in Bossier and Webster Parishes is
the most convoluted of all. Incumbent GOP state Sen. Robert Mills has an almost
unimpeachable conservative record. The Louisiana Association of Business and
Industry, which distributes a legislative
scorecard geared to measuring economic conservatism, rated him at 98
percent over his term, missing on only one vote and that because he was absent.
(Seabaugh, for his part, also scored 98 percent over the term.)

His filing demonstrates
this, with donations coming from a number of businesses and business PACs, as
well as a number of traditional GOP donors. He topped $200,000 and has almost
as much in reserve.

But his challenger, Republican Bossier Parish
School Board member Adam Bass,
is trying to argue Mills hasn't been enough of an economic conservative. Some
were upset that Mills, along with the rest of the Senate unanimously, this year
voted to allow for more spending on capital projects rather than paying down
pension liabilities and topping off the state's main savings account and in a
way that might have triggered tax cuts.

Bass tried to drive this point home in a recent
candidate forum on the Bossier Watch podcast/narrowcast, pointing to a
Mills vote on an amendment to a bill
hijacked from taxing marijuana to redistributing revenues from the general fund
to capital outlay. In the process, the amendment would have undone the 2025
expiration of the 0.45 percent sales tax increase first in 2016 then renewed in
2018 (where, in the renewal process, Seabaugh successfully maneuvered to prevent
a higher level that has ended up saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars).

Several GOP senators joined Mills in voting for
that, which Bass argued constituted voting for a tax increase. But Mills and
all others later voted to strip that amendment and when the bill passed it was
revenue neutral, and concerning his record generally on taxes and spending the
LABI scorecard speaks for itself.

Bass raised almost $50,000
fewer for a campaign that got a later start. His filing reflects donors
less business-oriented and more Bossier-centric, including solid support from
the Bossier political establishment, who never has warmed that much to Mills,
an outsider to it, while Bass is firmly a member of it.

It all may come down to Webster Parish. The Bossier
City part of the district is new to Mills, but if he can keep it close there
his Webster precincts where he likely will do much better than Bass should put
him over the top.(note: this has been corrected since original posting.)

Reapportionment shook up Caddo and Bossier Parish
representation in the Louisiana Legislature, setting up for some new faces, refugees
from other local offices, and intense clashes on this fall's ballot.

The area's overall declining population rearranged
things considerably. Which boundaries are coming and going will create some
interesting dynamics.

In the House of Representatives, District 1 won
last time for his first term by Republican Danny
McCormick, retreated from Bossier Parish to become a completely Caddo-based
entity. He will again face Republican Randall Liles in a race that
could be closer than last time. Although McCormick eked out a general election
win without runoff, he ran six percentage points better in Bossier than Caddo.
Still, the foothold he has established over the past four years and votes reflecting
the district's ideological tilt should be enough to reelect him.

The Bossier precincts largely transfer into
District 10, the Webster Parish-based district held by an unopposed Republican
Wayne McMahen. The district him for currently has Bossier's most southern
precinct as a footnote, but starting in 2024 his Bossier portion swings north
and grows substantially.

The other district within Bossier that largely was
an afterthought, the Caddo-based District 2 currently held by the leader of
Democrats' House caucus Sam Jenkins, expanded somewhat around old Bossier City.
Jenkins will try for the Senate District 39 seat of term-limited Democrat Greg
Tarver, and in his place Democrat Caddo School Board Member Terence Vinson will
make his second try for the seat in eight years. He is joined by Democrat Caddo
Parish Commissioner Steven Jackson.

Vinson's familiarity with the district should
help, but his main asset is the quite erratic and controversial tenure that Jackson
has had in office. In Bossier, Jackson committed his most recent and biggest
folly, convicted
for impersonating a police officer, which should just add to fodder that
ends Jackson's political career.

Joining Jenkins in pursuit of a Senate seat is
District 4 Democrat Cedric Glover. That House territory open, school board
member Democrat Jasmine Green, term-limited Democrat commissioner Lyndon
Johnson, and former District 3 candidate Democrat Joy Walters, who in 2019 lost narrowly
to Democrat Tammy Phelps, who didn't draw an opponent this year, when she lived
in that district. This could go in any direction, likely to the candidate who most
convincingly runs to the far left ideologically while conveying an ability to
bring home the bacon.

District 5 shifted eastward, still containing southeastern
Caddo but with much of it now outside the parish, the plurality of that in southern
Bossier and the remainder scattered well south into Red River Parish. Former
Bossier Parish School Board Member Republican Dennis Bamburg played his cards
right to become only one of three rookies to enter the House next year without
drawing any opposition.

While that district entered Bossier, District 6
exited it and will pick up a new representative as GOP state Rep. Thomas Pressly will gun for Senate District
38 that moved over to grab east Shreveport. Michael Melerine, present Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education member, also will take part in musical chairs
by running for this spot. He is a big favorite against no party public defender
Evan McMichael and Democrat theater
manager and activist Robert Darrow.

In recent years, the traditional afterthought House
district in Caddo has been District 7, as most of it is in rural parishes to
the south. GOP incumbent Larry Bagley
is heavily favored to retain that seat for a final term. In Bossier, the
boundaries shoved a bit north, District 8 Republican Raymond Crews faces no opposition for
another term.

As
previously noted, district boundary changes and Bossier political
establishment annoyance will create a rugged reelection battle for Republican Dodie Horton to secure a final term. She
squares off against businessman Chris
Turner, the establishment's pick. Her solid conservative legislative record
might be enough to hold him off.

The reconfigured Senate District 38, open as
incumbent Barry Milligan declined to run for a second term, that drew in Pressly
managed to retain former Democrat now Republican former seat holder John Milkovich.
Voters after one term grew sour on his taste
for big government in particular and Milligan handily defeated him last
time. Pressly is favored over him and also banker but previously political
operative Republican Chase
Jennings.

Spanning both parishes with a little presence in
Bossier, the District 39 race that attracted Glover and Jenkins also brought
back Democrat former state Rep. Barbara Norton, who tried to contest Tarver
last time but who
ran afoul of the residency requirement. With all three having tasted success
in running in parts of the district, this also will be a contest where the winning
candidate most convincingly runs to the left and shows an ability to pile up
the pork. Making things even more interesting, perennial GOP candidate Jim
Slagle is back, with his impact uncertain on who will make the runoff, or even
against him. However, Glover's track record also as Shreveport mayor perhaps
gives him a slight edge.

Perhaps receiving the award for most far-flung district
touching multiple parishes, the plurality of new District 31's residents lie in
Bossier and Caddo, washing over the southern reaches of each. As in the case of
House District 9 but for somewhat different reasons, this turned out as a battle
of the Bossier political establishment, if not of the rump grouping of white northwest
Louisiana Democrats whose power steadily has faded, against conservative insurgents. As previously noted, establishment forces back retired basketball coach Republican Mike McConathy while insurgents are
behind one of the Legislature's most prominent disruptors of traditional
liberal populism, term-limited Republican state Rep. Alan Seabaugh in a race sure to be close.
Again, a long legislative conservative record may allow Seabaugh to move into
the upper chamber.

Finally, as
previously noted another contest in which the establishment has a vested
interest occurs in District 36, which has migrated south and mostly out of
Webster Parish. Republican incumbent Robert
Mills, who beat an establishment incumbent last time that spent the most money
on a legislative race in history, takes on another establishment favorite in
the form of Republican Bossier Parish School Board Member Adam Bass. Mills has run into difficulty
among area conservatives by not backing an effort to hold the line on spending
hundreds of millions more dollars on capital outlay this past year, and this
disgruntlement presented an opportunity for the establishment to jump on him.
Mills will have to hope an otherwise solidly conservative voting record carries
him to victory.

Louisiana's political left finds itself in a pickle
as it seeks to defend the indefensible new congressional map, with its members
already signaling they have nothing up to snuff.

Within days of the special session last month to
redraw the plan under the threat of a federal court potentially to do the same,
voters
across the state filed suit to invalidate it. The map substantially
reorganizes boundaries of the northeast-to-central, northwest and western, and Baton
Rouge-to-the-southern-coast districts, most prominently creating a district acting
as a dagger into Shreveport with the handle slicing up Lafayette and Baton Rouge.
In the process, the new map manages except for Bossier City to crack every
major city in the state between various districts.

It was, in words repeated on the record often by its
legislative supporters, designed deliberately with race in mind to create two
majority-minority districts to avoid a court from doing that. They didn't
mention that it destroys communities of interest, violating one criterion of reapportionment
accepted in statute and the courts, and that it measures out similarly to a
district in a plan determined unconstitutional three decades ago for those
reasons.

But now this is all the left has available. The plaintiffs
in the original case want theirs dismissed, but even if that judge doesn't, it's
the new map that will be under litigation. So, the left is stuck with it and must
put lipstick on this pig.

The house organ of it, the web site Louisiana
Illuminator funded by far-left sources reflected in its writing and story
choices, did its best upon reporting
of the suit. It took isolated comments from legislators about how the map was
drawn for "political" reasons, harkening to a couple of other reapportionment criteria
recognized by the courts as valid: protection of incumbents and its relative,
seeking partisan advantage.

Just the slightest scrutiny demolishes this
argument. The new map deliberately sacrifices incumbent Republican Rep. Garret Graves, from Baton
Rouge, by giving him a hostile district to his reelection chances while making
it favorable for a Democrat. Also dividing the city is the district with
incumbent Republican Rep. Julia Letlow,
based in Monroe, who now likely would face a challenge from Graves (congressmen
only have to live in the state which they represent, not necessarily the
district) if the map were to be used for elections later this year.

In short, you can't argue either an incumbent or
party was protected under the plan. Just as laughable is the assertion in the article
by the plaintiffs' lawyers in the older suit that this new dagger-like district
isn't racially gerrymandered because it's more "compact," a quantifiable
measurement where less compact districts indicate greater willingness to sort
voters, among other things, by protected classes such as race.

But that district mathematically measures horribly
in an absolute sense, as the new suit details. Further, the entire map from 1994
declared unconstitutional actually scores better than the current map in many
ways, especially in that three major cities – Bossier City, Monroe, and Lake
Charles – were left unmolested in a single district each.

All its platitudes about voting rights aside, the real
goal all along in Louisiana's congressional reapportionment for the left has
been to pick up a seat for Democrats. But the map produced is so defective that
not only do leftists fear it won't stand ad infinitum, but, worse, that
it won't even make it to this fall's elections. The weak spoken defenses of the
current map speak volumes about the left's insecurities on this and signals it
will have to pull out all the legal stops just to delay the inevitable long enough
to have even one election cycle where it gains a partisan advantage.

The switch in a
couple of years to closed primary elections in Louisiana for all federal
offices and select plenary bodies stands little chance of expanding any time
soon.

After all sorts of machinations, the recent
special session of the Legislature added partially closed primaries for
election to all federal offices, save presidential preference primaries that
remain fully closed – meaning voters only may participate in the party primary matching
the label under which they registered, although parties have the option of
allowing unaffiliated voters to participate as well – and for the Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education, Public Service Commission, and Supreme
Court. These partially closed primaries are like full closed primaries except
parties cannot prevent unaffiliated voters from participating in their particular
primary if so chosen by a such a voter when accessing a ballot.

This will have zero immediate effect, since provisions
don't kick in until 2026, so that means the Supreme Court District 2, Public
Service Commission District 2, and House of Representatives seat elections scheduled
for this year, plus any special elections that may occur for these or the rest
of the Supreme Court or PSC or BESE or either Senate seat from now until the
end of 2025 will occur under the existing blanket primary rules. After that, partially
closed primaries will kick in for all of these, held on the March municipal
primary date.

The law also provides for runoff election if a
primary doesn't produce a majority winner. That would occur on the April municipal
general date. Months then would pass before the general election, which for
BESE and special elections for any of the others would be on the October state primary
date, and for all others and BESE special elections on the November primary
date. If no candidate receives a majority in these contests, then the runoff for
BESE and special elections for any of the others would be on the November federal
primary election date, and for all others and BESE special elections on the
December federal general election date.

Obviously, this will create some weirdness. Say
you are an unaffiliated voter living in Shreveport and 2026 rolls around. In
March, you'll face a ballot with party nominees for PSC and Congress and may
have to go back to vote on these in April; for these, if you vote you pick one
party's ballot, which could be different from March to April. Then, in November
you vote for PSC and Congress as well as things like mayor, district attorney,
and school board – and then again in December if runoffs present themselves.
Theoretically, you could end up for Congress or PSC voting for four candidates all
with different affiliations – a major party candidate in the primary, one from
the other major party in a runoff, then a minor party candidate in the general
election, and then maybe a no party candidate in a runoff. In fact, you could
end up, for example, voting for somebody for Congress in the spring who doesn't
win the nomination, then voting for him in the fall because he runs for mayor.

Worse, it can create confusion for voters. Say you
are an unaffiliated voter living in Kenner and 2026 rolls around. In March, you'll
vote in city elections where all candidate regardless of affiliation run
together, but also may have to pick a Senate and House candidate in a primary.
So, you have to choose a primary ballot for those office then mash it together with
a city ballot, while understanding on election day your choices for city
offices is wide open but for Congress it's restricted to a party that you have
to choose. And if you prefer a Republican for the House or Senate and a
Democrat for the other, you can't. (Not that this can't work; Monrovians long
have gotten used to closed presidential preference primaries on their March
ballots coexisting with blanket primaries for mayor and city councilors.)

And if you think this is bad, consider what the
Jefferson Parish Registrar of Voters and the Secretary of State's office will
have to do for Kennerites. For voters signed up for mail ballots for any of the
newly affected offices, they will have to mail out to registered Republicans
two separate ballots, one confined to party; similar with Democrats but
obviously with a different party ballot; to unaffiliated voters both party
ballots and the blanket primary ballot, and to minor party registrants just the
blanket primary ballot. In the case of unaffiliated voters, what happens if
they return both party ballots filled out (nothing in state law during the
session was changed to deal with situations like this)?

All of this will be used by opponents to portray
the changes in a negative light. Now that the minor alterations made it into
law, legislators lukewarm to hostile about closed primaries will declare at
least a few years should pass before making any further changes, and then they'll
point out the increased voter confusion, bureaucracy, and costs associated that
will add to resistance to expansion of closed primaries to other offices (while
selectively omitting that most of the greater bureaucracy and higher cost will
come from having a schizoid system, compared to the uniformity of all elections
having fully closed primaries). And the start two years from now effectively
adds two years before any further changes can come about.

This means that it will be years, and perhaps over
a decade before any more progress occurs with closed primary adoption, which is
the most
fundamental systemic change Louisiana could make to stem its history of policy
failure. A lot can happen between now and then that not only creates optics
that can sour policy-makers and the public on the idea, but also even could
spur reversal. It's unfortunate that policy-makers couldn't strike comprehensively
while the iron was hot, because it may be a long time before they get another
chance.

Louisiana's
new congressional districts are on the books. What happens next is a period
of instability that may not clear up until the next census.

January's special session jettisoned prior district
boundaries that contained only one majority-minority district in favor of two,
as a response to an adverse court decision based upon the outcome of the Allen v.
Milligan U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The ensuing plan radically altered
principally parts of the Fourth and Sixth Congressional Districts, with the latter
giving up its reach from Baton Rouge to the coast by running up the Red River
to take bites out of Lafayette, Alexandira and Shreveport, pushing a dagger
into the Fourth and becoming M/M.

This almost assuredly will put Republican Rep. Garret Graves out of office
later this year, with Democrat state Sen. Cleo Fields already having
announced his candidacy for the slot; Graves is white while Fields is black.
A congressman only has to live in the state in which he runs, not in a particular
district, but Graves has little chance winning in any other district currently
held by a Republican since his base still is in the Baton Rouge area.

Which won't last long. While several maps were
considered, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and the GOP
majority in the Legislature placed emphasis on protecting Republican Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader
Steve Scalise – the top
two jobs among congressional Republicans and therefore in Congress as the GOP
is the majority party. Had the Legislature not reapportioned in the special
session, the district court dealing with the case could have imposed any of
these that would have been less protective of the pair. One option in particular
might have made Johnson's Fourth District less secure.

Timing is everything in these matters, and had the
state stuck to its guns with the recent single M/M district the shifting legal
processes might have locked it in for 2024, because of the judicial (Purcell)
principle that courts won't order changes to maps too close to an election.
But had unpredictable legal processes worked out on a different timeline,
possibly a court-drawn map instead would have been set in stone for this fall. Thus,
Landry and GOP legislative leaders decided to pass the map most protective of
the important Republican leaders (who represent the first time in American
history one state has had the top two leadership positions in the House), even
if it meant losing the possibility that perfectly defensible maps would remain
in pace, to avoid having a court willing to rush a preferred map into place as
quickly as possible.

The problem that resulted is the map
constitutionally is questionable. Three decades ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals threw out as racially gerrymandered a similar map, with the only real
difference being it was drawn for seven districts. Chances are pretty good this
will happen again; even now, the state is being scoured for citizens in the Sixth
District willing to challenge the new map.

Even if that case were filed tomorrow, the principle
would prevent 2024 from using anything but the new boundaries. But by 2026, it's
at least even money that some case somewhere will have been heard by the Supreme
Court and have considered as part of it the Assoc. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurrence
in Allen v. Milligan that would end the preferred place race has in
reapportionment decisions, and produce a decision ending that preference. It
might even be part of a challenge to the new map, or perhaps part of the Nairne
v. Ardoin case brought against Louisiana's legislative plans.

That means, if Fields were to win, he could spend
a second short stint in Washington, three decades after his first (the district
declared unconstitutional like the present one actually was a second try after
the district in which Fields was elected was declared unconstitutional – eventually,
a far more race-neutral court-drawn plan after the two rejections ensured
Fields would not return). But then the state could revert back to something similar
as to what it just chucked in time for 2026, or 2028 if things move slowly.

However, although much less likely, the Court
could go ahead and declare the new map invalid but disregard the Kavanaugh
concurrence, which would mean another go at reapportionment in 2026 or later.
This is realistic only if a significant shift in Court membership occurred
among the five conservative associate justices.

Of course, eventually all of this could be
disrupted if population
trends don't work in the state's favor. By 2032, Louisiana may lose another
House seat, and then it all become a moot point; absent some unanticipated
resurrection of the notion of retrogression – paring of M/M seats – that
largely has fallen into disfavor since the 2013 Shelby County v.
Holder Court decision, the state's population distribution simply
couldn't support two of five M/M districts.

To make a long story short, nothing is settled. Almost
certainly the state will operate a two M/M map for this fall's election, but
there's a good chance that things will reset in 2026 to something like they were
in 2022. Whoever wins the Sixth this year should be prepared to expect a short
stay in D.C.