With Providence councilwoman's decision to step down, here's an early overview of Democrats who might run for her seat
It's still early – a special election will be scheduled within 90 days of Anthony's resignation – but several potential candidates have emerged. Keep in mind that the winner of the special election will have to run again for a four-year term next year.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Here's an overview of the Democrats who might run.
Advertisement
David Caldwell
The owner of Caldwell and Johnson and president of the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, Caldwell wouldn't have a problem raising the money to run a competitive race. Caldwell confirmed he plans to run for the seat.
Matt McDermott
A veteran pollster and Democratic strategist on the national level, McDermott is co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund Campaign Board. He's an ally of Providence Mayor Brett Smiley, and also wouldn't have a problem raising money and running a credible campaign. He said he's going to take the next couple of weeks to talk with his neighbors about how best to serve the city.
Advertisement
Jeff Levy
Levy might be best known as former state Senator Gayle Goldin's
husband, but he's also an attorney with Levy & Blackman LLP. He's well known in Ward 2, having been a board president at Fox Point East Side Little League. He confirmed that he is thinking about entering the race.
Kevin Lanni
After being on the shortlist to become Providence's police chief, Lanni left the department to become court administrator at the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal. He confirmed he is mulling a run.
Cliff Wood
Wood knows what it takes to win Ward 2 because he's done it before, defeating longtime incumbent Rita Williams
for the seat in 2006. He served one term, was mentioned as a potential mayoral candidate, and then ended up serving as executive director of the Providence Foundation. Wood said he wants to see who else is running, and if he runs, would only like to serve out the rest of Anthony's term (which ends next year).
Joe Paolino
The former Providence mayor got his start in politics as a councilman, albeit from Federal Hill. He's now one of the city's largest most prominent real estate owners, and would have no trouble funding his campaign.
Stating the obvious:
Every one of the candidates mentioned above are white men. It would be surprising if at least one female candidate – or a person of color – didn't take a serious look at the race.
This story first appeared in Rhode Map, our free newsletter about Rhode Island that also contains information about local events, links to interesting stories, and more. If you'd like to receive it via email Monday through Friday,
.
Advertisement
Dan McGowan can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
4 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Newsom, Other Blue State Governors Mull Response to Texas Redistricting Push—What to Know
With the 2026 midterm season drawing nearer, Republicans are examining the possibility of using redistricting to give themselves an advantage at the polls—and Democrats have indicated they're ready to respond in kind. Republicans hope that redistricting in red states like Texas, Florida, Ohio, and other states may expand their thin House majority during the next midterm election.
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: NASA Plans Nuclear Reactor on Moon
Harvard officials have been sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. By the start of last week, Harvard University had signaled its readiness to meet President Trump's demand that it spend $500 million to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its critical research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: $50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state work force development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marveled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr. Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' May Mailman, the top White House official under Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms. Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinize its behavior. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Monday that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were already sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government — after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr. Trump — would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending $500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Mass., campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr. Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr. Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University — which agreed to a $200 million fine last month — to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests last year. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr. Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's sprawling team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr. Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and work force training programs instead of the federal government, Mr. Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr. Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward work force programs aligns with some of what Mr. Trump himself has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking $3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after The Times reported the $500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr. Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its $53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up $7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip $9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened $510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its $50 million settlement payment toward work force programs of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fueled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant $500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. Last month, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programs, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Paula M. Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on Thursday, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Dr. Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Such dynamics, he said, are 'not uppermost in their minds in most commercial transactions.' But, he added, 'I don't think a university can be confident about that with the Trump administration.' Ms. Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a $53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?'
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
'All-out war': Fleeing Texas Dems side with Newsom as redistricting standoff continues: 'fire with fire'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he is ready to fight "fire with fire" as state Republican lawmakers try to enact redistricting in Texas, opposing the move though promising to pursue similar measures if needed. At a press conference on Monday, Newsom said he supports independent redistricting, as well as a national framework, and a proposal being advanced in the legislature reinforces what he supports. "The proposal that we're advancing with the legislature has a trigger only if they move forward, to dismantling the protocols that are well-established," the governor said. "Would the state of California move forward in kind? Fighting? Yes, fire with fire." When asked about a meeting between California Democrats on Sunday night, during which time they drafted or were almost done with the draft of redistricting maps, and whether he had seen those maps, Newsom said he had not. But he said there has been an ongoing series of conversations into the evening last night, which continued on Monday morning and will continue until Democrats land on a process. "That process has to have the concurrence, the support of two-thirds of the legislature," he said. "The maps, we believe, should be transparent. They should be provided in a transparent way to the public, and as a consequence, those maps are being processed and will be brought to light." At the end of the day, though, Newsom said the people of California will have the ultimate say. "We will offer them the opportunity to make judgments for themselves, again, only if Texas moves forward," Newsom said. "I'll reinforce that we believe it should be a national model, independent national redistricting, and it would revert back to its original form, but it's done in response to the existential realities that we're now facing. Things have changed, facts have changed, so we must change." "They've triggered this response and we're not going to roll over and we're going to fight fire with fire, but we're going to do so not just punching with the weight of the fourth largest economy, the most populous state in our union, the size of 21 state populations combined," he continued. "We also will punch above our weight in terms of the impact of what we're doing, and I think that should be absorbed by those in the Texas delegation. Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California, and they will pay that price." California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin told Fox News Digital that Newsom's actions could threaten the constitutional rights of Californians while also setting a dangerous precedent. "While Governor Newsom frames this redistricting as a defensive move, it undermines California's nationally respected, voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission, and if successful, sets a dangerous precedent that voters' choices can be overruled whenever politicians find it politically convenient," Rankin said. "Our primary concern is safeguarding Californians' constitutional rights against partisan manipulation disguised as defending democracy; true democracy means empowering voters, not politicians, to decide representation." Dozens of Texas Democrats fled their state and went to Chicago and New York on Sunday night in an effort to block a redistricting vote on Monday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has since threatened to arrest and expel the lawmakers if they do not return by Monday afternoon. Shortly after Abbott released his statement, the Texas House Democratic Caucus issued a simple response, writing: "Come and take it." The statement also described Republicans' proposed districts, which would potentially secure five new GOP U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections, as a "racist mid-decade redistricting scheme." Abbott criticized the Democrats' dramatic departure, saying that "real Texans don't run from a fight." On Monday evening, Illinois lawmakers hosted Texas Democrats for a press conference, during which time none of the lawmakers took a single question from the press. Still, Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., welcomed her colleagues and said they could stay as long as they wanted because they believed in what they were doing. "What you're doing and what…they're trying to do in Texas affects you guys, but it affects the whole country," she said. "When you want to remove five Democrats…that hurts us in the House." She explained that when there are not enough Democrats, things like the Big Beautiful Bill, or as she referred to it as "the Big Ugly Bill," and other Republican initiatives get through. "They are trying to destroy our democracy, destroy fairness in our country," Kelly said. "And unfortunately, they're starting with Texas. But we want you to know, we stand by your side." Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., accused Abbott of not stepping up for the people affected by devastating floods in the Hill Country region of Texas. Specifically, he accused Abbott of not having a special session to help families rebuild, but instead of doing "the bidding" of President Donald Trump to "banish Democrats" from the federal delegation. Krishnamoorthi then directed his comments to Abbott, saying, "don't mess with Texas," because the people standing with him represent Texas. "You can silence them. You can smear them. You can saddle them with debts and fins. But you cannot intimidate them," Krishnamoorthi said. "You can gerrymander the hell out of that map. Guess what? Two can play that game. That's right. Other states will do exactly the same thing and neutralize what you're trying to do in Texas." Other lawmakers standing side-by-side in Illinois chose to accuse Trump's policies of being race-driven. Texas State Rep. Ana-Maria Rodriguez Ramos said Trump's policies hurt working families. "That is nothing short of racism," she said. "He is coming after all of us who don't look like him and his Republican colleagues in the Texas House." Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, followed Rodriguez Ramos with more accusations of racism, saying Republicans are doing what Trump has insisted be done. "I want you to know that we didn't introduce the race card when this message was sent by and through the Justice Department to the State of Texas, to our attorney general," he said. "They mentioned the race card because they talked about racial gerrymandering. They brought it up, and when they brought it up, they did it, knowing that this was a buzz word. It was a trigger." "They know that that's a buzz word that people would respond to in Texas, but we are going to respond to that buzz word by telling them that your racism is not going to change democracy in the state of Texas," Green continued. "In the United States of America, racism is going to be met with our taking a stand for democracy. You take a stand for racism, we will stand for democracy, and we will win." Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, said she was pleased that states like California and New York were standing up for Texas Democrats because, once it happens in Texas, it will spread to other states. She called the issue a "national war," and "an all-out war" in which everything is on the table. "We come from a state of great pride, and I never thought as a Texan, as an elected member of the Texas House of Representatives and now as an elected member from Texas to the United States House of Representatives, that I would see the governor of the proud state of Texas bend a knee to a felon from New York," Johnson added. "I never thought I'd see the day, but here we are." Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, was also standing with fellow Democrats in Illinois and accused Abbott of talking "a lot of noise." She also accused Republicans of being "weak." "The difference is they expect Democrats to kind of be the nice guys that we are," Crockett said. "They expect us to take the punch and say thank you. Well, I am here to tell you not only are we going to punch back, but we about to beat you down." Still, Abbott told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday that Texas is doing what it is allowed to do by law. He also accused state Democrats of doing something "un-Texas" by turning their back on Texans and not dealing with the flooding issues still echoing across the state. Abbott said four of the five seats that could change because of redistricting will be primarily Hispanic. "These are seats where Democrats are having to come to grips with reality," he said, explaining that Democrats are losing votes to Hispanics and Black voters in Texas. He also said Democrats are "freaking out" because they are realizing Texas has the authority to redistrict. "Texas will continue to fight for what is right," Abbott said.
