False Endorsements Haunt Pringle : Campaign: Incumbent assemblyman says leftover printing material was redistributed, giving voters the wrong information. One police group raises the possibility of a lawsuit.

Despite a pledge that he would stop, incumbent Assemblyman Curt Pringle has continued to use campaign literature that claims endorsements from several police groups that are actually supporting Democratic opponent Tom Umberg.

Some of the groups warned Pringle (R-Garden Grove) not to use their names two weeks ago after the claim of endorsements first appeared in a letter from his campaign. But at least three subsequent letters mailed to voters have included the erroneous endorsements, and last weekend his campaign distributed the same list in a door-to-door blitz.

Pringle said Monday that the literature passed out on the weekend was printed for a mailing before the groups’ warnings two weeks ago. “I had a certain amount left over, so I was hand-distributing it this weekend,” he said.

Pringle said he was aware that at least four police groups in the brochure have endorsed Umberg, but he said he did not believe that his continued use of the material was a misrepresentation to voters.

“I know for a fact that I am being as straightforward and honest as possible in everything I send out,” he said. “This was just extra literature that was an overrun from the printers.”

Pringle said all of his extra brochures have now been distributed, and he will no longer use the inaccurate endorsement list.

Both campaigns have coveted support from law enforcement leaders and organizations because crime is considered the most important issue to voters in the 72nd Assembly District, which includes Stanton and parts of Garden Grove, Westminster, Anaheim and Santa Ana.

With the distribution of brochures over the weekend, voters in the 72nd District have now received the erroneous list of police endorsements six times, including five separate letters.

Three of the letters were sent by independent expenditure committees working for Pringle’s reelection but legally precluded from coordinating their efforts with the candidate. Pringle said he could therefore not be responsible for inaccuracies in those three letters.

William Saracino, director of one of the committees responsible for the mailing, said Monday that he saw a newspaper article about the controversy about a week ago, but it was too late to remove the list from the mailers his group sent. He said any future letters mailed to the district will not include the erroneous endorsements.

“We were aware of the controversy only secondhand; they (police groups) have yet to talk to me directly,” he said. “So, I think technically and legally I could still be using all those (endorsements).”

Umberg’s campaign claims that there are actually at least nine police groups on Pringle’s endorsement list that are incorrect. Four have endorsed Umberg and most of the others have not endorsed any candidate, said George Urch, campaign manager for Umberg.

The groups in Pringle’s mailer that have endorsed Umberg are: the California State Police Assn., the Hospital Police Assn. of California, the State Park Peace Officers Assn. and the California Fish and Game Wardens Protective Assn.

Pringle said his original use of the names was an inadvertent mistake. An umbrella organization that represents about two dozen police groups endorsed his campaign and told him in a letter: “Feel free to use our name and affiliate list.” He did, but several of the affiliates had already endorsed Umberg on their own.

Monday, Umberg joined a representative from the California State Police Assn. in a press conference threatening to file a lawsuit if Pringle continued to misrepresent the endorsements.

“Mr. Pringle was asked to stop. We are now telling him to stop,” said Martin Hagan, the group’s Southern California director. “Mr. Pringle is using our name fictitiously and it has got to stop.”

Times staff writer Rose Ellen O’Connor contributed to this story.