Lake Charles mayoral race will be decided Saturday
Lake Charles City Hall
The Lake Charles mayoral race will be decided in Saturday's runoff between incumbent Nic Hunter, a Republican, and Marshall Simien, an independent.
During the March election, neither man — who split the vote with three other candidates — received more than 50 percent of the vote. Hunter received 47 percent of votes cast, while Simien received 29 percent.
The Lake Charles City Council seat for District C will also be decided. The two candidates are Democrats Tommy Bilbo and Priscilla Sam.
Also on the ballot will be four tax renewals for the city of Westlake as well as a parishwide tax renewal that funds one-third of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office operating budget.
Allen Parish voters are being asked whether they approve of a 1 percent sales tax to fund the budget of the village of Elizabeth. A 10-year tax renewal to fund Hospital Service District No. 3 will also be on the ballot.
Beauregard voters — and some in Vernon — will decide who will be the next DeRidder mayor. The candidates are Danny Reynolds, a Republican, and Michael Harris, an independent. Beauregard voters are also being asked whether they approve of the sale of bonds not exceeding $30 million bond to fund school district operations.
There are two tax renewals on Vernon ballots, as well.
Jeff Davis will decide who will be the next Jennings City Council member for District A. The candidates are Elisha Duhon, a Republican, and Carolyn Simon, no party.
Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Saturday. Anyone in line at 8 p.m. will be allowed to vote. Voters should bring an ID with them to vote (Louisiana driver's license, Louisiana Special ID card, a generally recognized picture identification card with name and signature such as a passport, or a digital license via LA Wallet).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers condemn Trump's use of Guard, active-duty troops in LA
Congressional Democrats and administration critics condemned President Donald Trump's decision this weekend to federalize National Guard troops in California as a serious breach of standards for the involvement of the military in domestic affairs. 'Such unilateral action, taken without consultation with local leaders, risks escalating tensions rather than calming them,' Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Sunday night. 'This move sets a troubling precedent for military intervention in local law enforcement. 'It is crucial that decisions of this magnitude are made with transparency, restraint, and respect for constitutional balance.' Over the weekend, Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell the protests over immigration policies and enforcement. About 300 have already arrived in the city to help with peacekeeping activities. The move came over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty' in a social media post Sunday. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in a statement called Trump's decision 'an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation. It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop.' Officials from the veterans organization Common Defense said the moves 'undermine civil rights and betray the principles we swore to uphold.' Newsom and others promised to file legal actions in coming days to challenge the president's decision. In addition to the Guard actions, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took to social media late Saturday night to say that if violence in the Los Angeles region continues, 'active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized.' Officials said about 500 active-duty personnel are preparing to deploy if needed. Trump has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' But critics have called his interpretation of the law an overreaction, and noted that the recent moves were the first time in decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor. Hegseth is scheduled to testify before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on Tuesday, where he will likely face additional questions about the military deployments. The Los Angeles protests were sparked by the arrest of more than 40 individuals in immigration raids across the city Friday. Since then, nearly 60 more have been charged with vandalism and violence for attempts to block federal officials from conducting additional operations. Trump on social media said the individuals objecting to the immigration raids 'are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists.' He also repeatedly criticized Newsom and local Democratic leaders for not taking a stronger stance against the violence. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
