Pringle’s Tough Year in Capitol

I read with considerable interest the article (“After a Bruising Freshman Term, Pringle Faces Fight for Reelection,” Sept. 5) detailing Curt Pringle’s difficulties as a freshman member of the Assembly. Although the article blames partisan politics for his problems, I think his own ineptness is to blame.

It is true that “the enmity created by the poll guards incident dogged Pringle throughout his first term,” and with good reason. His campaign paid for bilingual signs, meant to intimidate Spanish-speaking voters into not casting their votes, to be posted at polling places, and one member of his campaign staff was involved in the hiring of uniformed guards who were instructed to ask questions of Hispanics about their legal residence status.

Now, if, as he claimed, Pringle did not know or approve of these actions, I would question the effectiveness of his communication with his staff. If he did know, I would question his judgment on what kind of treatment people will tolerate, and his fiscal acumen. The $450,000 paid out of court to five individuals whose civil rights had been violated by these tactics was the largest political fine ever paid.

Pringle says: “My major emphasis has been, and always will be, constituent service.” One wonders, then, if he treated these constituents with such disrespect, who then are the constituents that he is desiring to serve?

It wouldn’t be the children of Santa Ana; he did not support a bill that would have provided school construction funds. Is it the victims of crimes perpetrated upon them because of their race, religion or sexual orientation? No, Pringle did not support the Hate Crimes bill, either. Is it workers in Garden Grove who are laboring under unsafe and illegal working conditions? No, Assemblyman Pringle did not support the sweatshop legislation.

Pringle says that “I often look at opposing legislation as the glamorous part.” He must have felt very “enchanting,” then when he voted with the National Rifle Assn. against the ban on assault weapons.

Perhaps we are coming closer to realizing who these constituents are. Besides the powerful gun lobby, maybe they are the gang members and drug dealers who might avail themselves of these arms?

Granted, Pringle passed legislation benefiting mobile home park residents and wheelchair users. But of other bills, he says that he would “much rather have (those bills) as a cornerstone of my legislative ability.” In this instance the bills he refers to concern expansion of the death penalty and longer prison terms for violent criminals. (Perhaps the ones using the assault weapons he refused to ban.)

The California Journal, a nonpartisan publication, distributed questionnaires concerning effectiveness, integrity, intelligence. Out of 120 entrants, Assemblyman Pringle was rated 115th.

Perhaps a low score in effectiveness could be attributed to partisan politics, as The Times article suggests. However, Pringle’s “glamorous” opposition of legislation benefiting his constituents would indicate a lack of integrity, of not serving those he has promised to serve. His involvement in the use of signs and guards at the polling places indicates a lack of intelligence as well.

Pringle is characterized as a “bullied, vulnerable legislator,” hoping to win the next election so the Democrats will leave him alone.

If he is elected, I’m sure that with his lack of integrity and intelligence, he will continue quite nicely on his own, to be ineffective and inept, without any help from the Democrats.

PAMELA CLARK

Irvine