Senate Race Against Hill Lacks Support, Opponent Says

Last January, Democrat Janice Graham was rubbing her hands at the prospect of running against Republican Assemblyman Frank Hill in a special state Senate race.

He is on the wrong side of the electorate in opposing abortion, she thought. And he has been targeted by the FBI’s influence-peddling investigation in Sacramento at a time when public attention is focused on political ethics.

In a race against Hill (R-Whittier), Graham predicted that state Democratic leaders and California abortion rights groups would mobilize volunteer forces for her and contribute thousands of dollars.

Graham got her wish to run against Hill when they won their party nominations in a special primary election Feb. 5 to replace former state Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights). But instead of being swamped by money and support, Graham has been frustrated by a lack of attention.

She still feels she can win the April 10 election in a predominantly Republican district that runs from Laguna Beach in the south to Whittier and West Covina in the north. But her effort is going to be more lonely than she anticipated.

Speaking of the state Democratic leadership, she wondered recently, “Why wouldn’t they take the chance?” Robert Forsyth, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), put it bluntly.

“This is a race that would be very, very, very difficult for any Democrat to win because of the (Republican) nature of the registration and the voting in that district,” he said. “Just as there are certain districts where it’s (a) given that it is Democratic, there are also certain districts where it’s a given that it’s Republican.”

Indeed, the 31st Senate District is among the most Republican in California--54% of its residents are registered with the GOP and 36% are Democrats.

Graham also complained about the California Abortion Rights Action League, which worked for one of her GOP opponents in the open primary but has declined to support her candidacy.

“They have created a division within the pro-choice ranks in Orange County,” Graham said. “They tell me I don’t have a chance to win and they only back winners.”

League spokesman Peter Scranton responded: “We only have so much time and money to spend. All the professionals seem to think that this one can’t be won.”

Graham’s campaign manager, Peter Remer, said the race was “tougher than we realized. Part of the problem is that Frank Hill is a sitting assemblyman and a lot of special interests are (reluctant) about going against him.”

Remer said, however, that Hill “can be beaten.” He said Graham’s campaign will target Democratic voters with a message that includes abortion rights and ethics. And he said it is significant that Hill won the primary with less than 25% of the vote.

Hill said that is one of the reasons he is running a full-scale campaign despite his favored status. Hill said he plans to spend $400,000. Graham said she has raised $34,000, but is broke.

The biggest reason Graham was excited last January about a race against Hill is the FBI investigation. She expected that the corruption investigation would create a chance to seize a solid Republican seat from a weakened candidate.

Hill’s Sacramento office was raided by the FBI more than a year ago as part of an undercover sting operation that has led to the conviction of former state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) and the recent indictment of former state Sen. Paul Carpenter (D-Norwalk).

Hill denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged. But to keep the issue alive, Graham issued a scathing press release last week charging: “Mr. Hill has disgraced the . . . Legislature with his actions and he has clearly shown that his vote is for sale to the highest bidder. He has the ethics of a rattlesnake--slippery and slimy and ready to bite.”

Sal Russo, Hill’s campaign manager, said: “The American public is pretty good about recognizing that people are innocent until proven guilty.” He said the important issues are “bread and butter. . . . They’re crime and taxes and growth and development.”