Pringle Defends Seat in Hot O.C. Assembly Race

When the houses in Garden Grove and surrounding cities were new, much of Orange County was covered with citrus orchards. It was farm country and, like the heartland in the Midwest, its people were hard-working, patriotic churchgoers.

Today, the county is known more for its oceanfront luxury, shopping mall kitsch and Disneyland make-believe. But in the five cities that make up the 72nd Assembly District, many of the families are second- or third-generation residents who have been left behind by nouveau Orange County.

The same is true in politics, where this area is an aberration in the middle of California’s Republican stronghold. It is predominantly Democratic, the only such legislative district in Orange County. Still, its voters are conservative, and they are perfectly willing to elect a Republican.

So it is natural that the battle to represent this district in Sacramento would be competitive. And this election year, it is very competitive.

“This one is shaping up to be the hottest Assembly race in the state,” said Otis Turner, aide to Assembly Minority Leader Ross Johnson (R-La Habra). “The top priority for both parties is to protect incumbents, and since Curt (Pringle) is under the heaviest challenge, it is becoming the most important race.”

Pringle is the Republican who won the seat in 1988 by fewer than 900 votes and is facing his first reelection bid.

Pringle, 31, is a product of Garden Grove public schools and a part-owner of the family business, a drapery manufacturer and cleaner. He has had an active interest in civics since college, when he ran unsuccessfully for the Garden Grove City Council at age 20. He ran again and lost when he was 23 and one more time at 25.

“In the two to three years before I ran for office, I went to every council meeting,” Pringle said. “I was just watching the decision-making process.

“It seemed very natural for me to go into politics. Politics was a way to improve your area and have a say.”

Democrats, meanwhile, hope that their candidate is the best match for the politics of the 72nd District.

Tom Umberg, 35, is a former assistant U.S. attorney in Santa Ana who prosecuted drug crimes, gang members and civil rights cases, including a much-publicized cross-burning incident in Westminster.

He also has a second career of sorts: After serving nearly 18 years in the military, he is a major in the Army Reserve.

The son of a paper company operations manager who grew up in suburban Chicago, Umberg enlisted in Army ROTC when he was 17, just weeks before then-President Richard M. Nixon ordered U.S. troops out of Vietnam in 1973.

“I knew the mood of the country wasn’t exactly patriotic,” Umberg said. “I just thought the military would be an interesting way to develop leadership skills. And we were middle income--they offered an attractive scholarship.”

The battlefield for these two candidates includes Stanton and parts of Garden Grove, Westminster, Santa Ana and Anaheim, where a sliver of the district surrounds Disneyland.

The district is mostly working-class white, but it has a rapidly growing ethnic community that includes the county’s largest Latino and Vietnamese neighborhoods. Population counts are old, but it is estimated that about 22% of the district is Latino and about 6% Asian.

No other legislative district in the state has such a large ethnic population and is represented in Sacramento by a Republican, Pringle said.

The Latino vote in this election will be watched especially closely because of a controversy stemming from Pringle’s 1988 campaign, in which Republican Party officials hired uniformed guards to monitor polling places on Election Day in several Santa Ana neighborhoods.

A civil suit subsequently filed against Pringle and other Republican officials by several Latino voters who said they were intimidated by the guards resulted in a court settlement of more than $400,000. County and federal authorities also are still conducting a criminal investigation into possible civil rights violations.

Umberg has referred to the issue frequently, including a recent letter that said: “I am running for state Assembly because our community’s lawmaker is also a lawbreaker.”

Pringle has denied any wrongdoing in the case and has said he does not believe it will be a major factor in the outcome of the Nov. 6 election.

Politics in the 72nd District is also distinguished by the largest population of mobile home residents in California. And it is driven by the highest crime rates in Orange County.

In many places, doors have multiple locks, windows are barred and walls are spray-painted with gang graffiti. More than half of the county’s major crimes--including murder--take place in the five cities that are part of the district.

As a result, crime fighting is the major pitch for both campaigns. It is in their literature and their speeches.

Umberg sent voters a letter signed by representatives from three police groups that said: “As a crusading federal criminal prosecutor with a 100% conviction rate, he has the experience to make a difference.”

Pringle advertises the three crime bills he introduced in the last two years. None passed, and he blames the Assembly’s Democratic leadership for their failure.

One bill would have doubled the sentence for first-degree murder convictions and eliminated the possibility of parole. Another would have allowed the death penalty for criminals convicted of selling fatal doses of drugs to minors.

The bottom line, however, is that both candidates are substantially similar in their positions on crime--strong law-and-order supporters. Both favor the death penalty, tougher sentences and more support for local police.

Both supported the so-called Speedy Trial Initiative that passed on the June ballot to streamline the criminal court process.

But both oppose Proposition 133, the Safe Streets Initiative, which would raise the state sales tax by a half-cent to pay for more drug policing as well as drug education and rehabilitation programs. Both sides said that the initiative’s goals are admirable but not worth a tax increase and that the money can be found elsewhere in the state budget.

Politically, Umberg gets a big boost on the crime issue from the designation that will appear next to his name on the ballot: Assistant U.S. Attorney. Campaign officials believe that was one of the biggest reasons for his nearly 2-to-1 victory in the June Democratic primary over a hard-campaigning Jerry Yudelson.

Pringle has even gone to court to try to get the designation removed from the ballot, arguing that it is not now accurate; Umberg had to quit the prosecutor job when he announced his campaign.

A judge disagreed.

Probably the second-most-debated issue in the race is taxes. Once again, both candidates have similar positions: They hate them.

Pringle: “We’re paying plenty of taxes, we’re just not getting the bang for the buck.”

Umberg: “We’re strained already. Any increase is going to hit us (middle-income families) the hardest.”

But there are two other issues looming large in this election that do split the candidates. They are Proposition 128, the so-called Big Green environmental initiative, and Proposition 140, the measure to limit terms of state lawmakers.

Pringle was the first California assemblyman to announce his support for Proposition 140’s term limits, and he is still one of the few incumbents supporting the measure, although GOP gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson recently joined the effort.

Proposition 140 would limit Assembly members to three two-year terms and other state lawmakers--including senators and the governor--to two four-year terms. It would also drastically cut legislators’ pension and office budgets.

The measure was inspired by a growing public frustration with a Legislature that has been racked by scandal and criticized for inaction. But critics--including Umberg--say to remove the most experienced lawmakers would make the Legislature vulnerable to special-interest lobbyists and empire-building bureaucrats.

Pringle countered: “The only expertise those (experienced) guys have is how to manipulate the system. And in my opinion, if that’s lost, it would be good riddance.”

On Big Green, Umberg is a strong supporter, while Pringle is an opponent.

“We’ve got to take responsibility for our environment,” Umberg said. “Nobody has come up with a better solution.”

But Pringle said: “It would be devastating to California. It would drive major businesses out of state, set up a huge new bureaucracy and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

The other major distinction that has surfaced between the candidates is on abortion.

Pringle opposes abortion rights without exception, including cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. As a result, state and national abortion rights groups have targeted Pringle for defeat and are helping Umberg’s campaign with volunteers and money.

Umberg supports abortion rights with some restrictions. He would prohibit abortion in the third trimester except to save the life of the mother, and he favors parental consent laws.

This campaign is being waged in the mail and with old-fashioned shoe leather.

Both candidates are walking door to door to lobby voters almost every day. And, combined, they have raised nearly $500,000 for the race, much of it to send mail targeted by computer to specific voter profiles.

A lot of the recent mail from both campaigns has been attacking the opponent.

Pringle has tried to link Umberg to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), calling Umberg Brown’s “handpicked choice.” In response, Umberg mailed a pledge to voters, saying he would not accept any money from Brown or from Johnson, Brown’s Republican counterpart in the Assembly leadership.

In the final weeks of the race, special interest groups from outside the district are expected to make a big showing.

Already, the National Rifle Assn. has made a major contribution to Pringle. This weekend the anti-abortion rights group Operation Rescue was scheduled to provide volunteers for Pringle’s campaign. And a committee financed by conservative Republican leaders has indicated that it may spend up to $100,000 for Pringle through independent spending not controlled by Pringle’s campaign.

Umberg, meanwhile, has the financial and volunteer help of abortion rights groups.

“This is one of the most important races in the state,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), an adviser to Umberg’s campaign. “And it’s probably going to be one of the closest races.”

72ND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT

Curt Pringle

Party: Republican

Age: 31

Home: Garden Grove

Occupation: Incumbent

Background: Commercial sales manager for Pringle’s Draperies, a manufacturer; ran unsuccessfully for Garden Grove City Council in 1980, 1982, 1984.

Issues: Opposes abortion rights laws; favors the death penalty; favors Proposition 140 to limit the terms of state lawmakers; opposes Proposition 128, the Big Green environmental initiative; opposes Proposition 134, a tax on beer and liquor to pay for alcohol treatment and education; opposes Proposition 133, the Safe Streets Initiative calling for a half-cent sales tax to pay for anti-drug efforts.

Tom Umberg

Party: Democratic

Age: 35

Home: Garden Grove

Occupation: Former federal prosecutor

Background: Resigned from the U.S. attorney’s office in Santa Ana in March to run for Assembly after two years as a prosecutor; served in the Army in Korea and Europe; promoted to major in the Army Reserve in 1988.

Issues: Supports abortion rights and public funding for low-income women seeking abortions; supports the death penalty; opposes the ballot measure to limit terms of state lawmakers; favors the Big Green environmental initiative; opposes the tax on alcohol to pay for rehabilitation and education programs; opposes the Safe Streets Initiative calling for a half-cent sales tax to fund anti-drug efforts.