Antonovich Faults Turnout, but GOP Support In Doubt

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich blamed a low GOP voter turnout for his poor showing at the polls Tuesday that forced him into a November rematch with his old nemesis, Baxter Ward. But an examination of voting patterns across the 5th District shows signs that his Republican bedrock of support is crumbling.

The erosion was most dramatic in heavily Republican areas where residents have felt the effects of the county’s controversial pro-development policies.

In the city of Santa Clarita, where 55% of the voters are Republicans, Antonovich received just 27% of the vote. In Agoura Hills, he captured 29% of the vote, a dramatic plunge from four years ago, when he attracted 56% from the same area.

The majority of voters in other traditional GOP strongholds, such as the northwest San Fernando Valley, Burbank and Pasadena, also failed to strongly support the Republican supervisor. These communities, which had helped propel Antonovich into office in 1980, threw just as much support this time to the incumbent’s challengers.

District Tally

Districtwide, Antonovich received 45% of the vote to Ward’s 22%, and 20% went to the other chief Democratic opponent, Don Wallace, a Los Angeles city fire captain. Seven other opponents, many running on a slow-growth platform with Wallace, picked up the rest of the votes. Antonovich needed a greater than 50% showing in the nonpartisan primary to avoid a runoff with the second-place finisher.

Ward and Wallace took full advantage of what they saw as Antonovich’s Achilles’ heel. Ward was the top vote-getter among discontented Santa Claritans. Wallace handily beat the competition in Calabasas, his hometown, and in nearby Agoura Hills and Topanga.

It was in Topanga that Antonovich was stung the worst, receiving only 15% of the vote.

Antonovich captured 50% or more in only four of the 17 cities within the 5th District: Glendale, his hometown; La Canada Flintridge; San Marino; and Lancaster. In the San Fernando Valley, Antonovich received a 40% vote of confidence.

Antonovich’s opponents contend that the Republican supervisor’s poor showing in friendly GOP territory and elsewhere proves that the slow-growth movement has caught up with him. During the primary campaign, political analysts had wondered whether voters who don’t live in unincorporated areas--where the Board of Supervisors oversees development--would blame Antonovich for traffic congestion, pollution and an erosion of the quality of life.

‘Demonstrably Clear’

“It’s demonstrably clear . . . even Republicans don’t want their neighborhoods screwed up,” observed one Democratic consultant, who asked not to be identified.

But Antonovich’s consultants say Tuesday’s primary was not a referendum on the two-term incumbent’s development record. They say Antonovich was hurt because the inevitability of Vice President George Bush’s GOP presidential nomination kept Republican voters from the polls. What’s more, they add, there were no provocative ballot initiatives or divisive local races to excite potential GOP voters.

“You have something you have no control over--an attitude, an ambivalence, an apathy among the Republican voters,” said Don Dornan, Antonovich’s media consultant, who also predicted, “This will change.”

Democrats did outnumber Republicans at the polls on Tuesday. Countywide, 49% of the registered Democrats and 44% of the registered Republicans voted. Those percentages probably mirror voter-turnout figures in the 5th District, Antonovich’s consultants said.

GOP consultants said they were not surprised that the incumbent did poorly in the Las Virgenes and Santa Clarita valleys, where an anti-Antonovich sentiment simmers among the growing areas of new homes and apartments. Before the primary, they also believed their chances of capturing Antelope Valley, which is likewise experiencing tremendous growth, was marginal at best.

Staff Shocked

But Antonovich’s lackluster showing elsewhere shocked his campaign staff. Polling showed that Antonovich enjoyed a favorable reputation among voters and also indicated that drugs, gangs and crime--not development--were top concerns of his constituents, said Arnie Steinberg, Antonovich’s pollster.

Antonovich’s drop in popularity among San Fernando Valley voters indicates the challengers convinced some constituents that the supervisor was responsible for congestion in the cities, Steinberg said. In the Valley, Antonovich’s support plummeted 19 percentage points from his 59% showing in 1984.

“I believe his opponents are unfairly trying to link him with problems within the city of Los Angeles,” Steinberg said. “To that extent, people are unfairly taking out their frustrations” on Antonovich.

Peak Support

Voting records since 1980 indicate that Antonovich’s support peaked four years ago and eroded uniformly across the sprawling district on Tuesday. His support even shrunk in Glendale, which gave him 56% of the vote last week compared with 71% in 1984. In Burbank his support dropped from 66% four years ago to 47%. In San Fernando, the supervisor received 60% in 1984 and 36% this year. In Pasadena, his support fell from 60% to 48%.

Democrats discount the explanations Antonovich’s staff offers for the phenomenon.

“I really think the slow-growth movement had a lot to do with the fact he didn’t get a majority vote,” said Bud Knutsen, chairman of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley. “It bodes trouble for him. All the omens indicate maybe he will go down the tubes.”