State Democrats Consider Adding Caucus in Spring : Politics: Proponents want more control over the selection of the party’s nominee in 1992.

California Democrats, seeking to assert more control over the selection of the party’s presidential nominee in 1992, are considering supplementing the traditional June primary with a spring caucus that would make the state an early and influential stop on the road to the White House.

Different forms of the caucus proposal are expected to be discussed at the state party’s three-day convention beginning today in Oakland. Each would set up statewide party gatherings in late February or early March, just after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Political activists have long been frustrated that California, the most populous state in the nation with 30 million people, often has virtually no role in deciding party nominees because its primary occurs so late in the nominating season. Most of the time, California has been limited to serving as the financier of national campaigns.

Attempts to bolster the state’s political influence by moving the primary from June to March have foundered, although Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) plans next week to resubmit a bill pushing the primary date forward.

The caucus, which would change California’s delegate system, also would transform the way presidential candidates campaign not only here but across the nation, forcing them to broaden their early campaign organizations beyond the relatively small states of Iowa and New Hampshire into one of the nation’s most logistically difficult environments.

According to the proposals, about 114 delegates to the Democratic National Convention would be selected in caucuses, with the remainder of the 227 elected delegates picked during the June primary. Overall, the caucus delegates would make up about 30% of the total pool of 382 convention delegates, some of whom are appointed.

Even as the informal proposals circulated, the proposed split system was generating opposition and potentially lethal grumbling from the Democratic National Committee, which must approve any change in the delegate selection system.

Principally, opponents worried that it could undercut the effort to move the California primary to March. Opponents also said that because of the state’s size, a California caucus would be extraordinarily difficult to organize for the party and candidates. And, they said, because only 30% of the delegates would be selected before June, it would not accomplish the major goal of Democrats in the state--to wield a huge bloc of important votes early in the process.

“In the common, practical sense, it will be awesomely expensive in terms of time, money, staff, candidates and energy,” said Alice Travis, director of political programs for the Democratic National Committee.

“We would like to win the White House in 1992 and I think this . . . potentially creates more problems than it solves.”

Travis and other opponents also said the proposal may not be allowed under party rules, which require all states that have primaries to deliver delegates in proportion to the percentage of votes a candidate received on Election Day. Under the split system, the delegates elected in the June California primary would be proportional to the popular vote, unlike those selected during the caucuses.

Nevertheless, advocates of the new system argue that it would generate enthusiasm among the state’s Democratic activists. Under the current system, these stalwarts have little reason to work hard for a candidate who will be out of the running or already nominated by the time the California primary arrives.

They also discount criticism that the caucus would be limited in influence because only 30% of the delegates would be at stake. They note that even a portion of California’s delegates dwarfs the number awarded by other states.

“This will force the candidates to get supporters out here and organize the state in chunks,” said Jim Fay, a California State University, Hayward, political science professor and a co-author of one of the proposals. “It would force the presidential candidates to pay attention to California for reasons other than fund raising.”

Charles P. Fuentes, a state party vice chairman and author of another version, said the split system would take effect only if the California primary were not moved up to March.

“This is a good thing for the party and a good thing for the candidates,” Fuentes said. “If there’s going to be any chance at all, they’re going to have to do well in California.”

Early assessments differed over whether the change would benefit any particular candidate in 1992, but it would be expensive for all of them.

Particularly in 1992 when there is little lead time before the caucus, candidates would have to finance a major grass-roots organization or a statewide television campaign. Candidates who survived until June would have to spend even more for additional television exposure before the primary.

“You’re going to have to be some kind of national figure,” said former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., a veteran of numerous statewide races in California and two presidential campaigns. Added Brown, who supports the split system: “It does take a personality, some kind of movement or a cause.”

Convention delegates gathered in Oakland this weekend are likely to be asked to vote on a general proposal, with the precise details left to be worked out by the party’s executive committee in June, Brown and others said. After that, the change would have to be approved by the Democratic National Committee.

The convention that will be dominated by discussion of the 1992 presidential sweepstakes will have few national candidates in attendance.

Normally, in the year before the presidential election, California would be swarming with presidential possibilities. But the Gulf War and President Bush’s resulting popularity have caused Democrats to delay consideration of a run for office.

National figures scheduled to speak at the convention are Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, who has ruled out a presidential bid, and former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson, who has not made clear his plans for 1992.

Also likely to surface this weekend is a party tussle resulting from the political fallout of the Persian Gulf conflict. Nationally and statewide, Democrats who voted against the use of force in the Gulf have been targeted for insult by Republicans, most recently at the state Republican convention in Sacramento last weekend. Democrats who supported the Gulf War have come under fire from their own party.

With a cease-fire still holding as the weekend approached, some Democrats were hoping to avoid a public battle over the merits of the conflict and instead press their concerns on the domestic front.

“We are in a recession, the banking system is in real trouble, states all over the country are in deficits,” said Philip Angelides, one of two candidates to replace Brown as party chairman. “. . . In many senses the conclusion of the war will allow domestic issues (to surface) in which Democrats prosper.”

Beyond its implications for 1992 presidential candidates, the convention will serve as the first mass pep rally for a half-dozen actual and potential Senate candidates for the two seats up for election next year.

On Saturday alone, five are expected to speak back to back--Brown, Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy and U.S. Reps. Barbara Boxer of Greenbrae and Robert T. Matsui of Sacramento--all of whom have announced their Senate bids, and state Controller Gray Davis, who is expected to run.

Dianne Feinstein, the party’s most recent nominee for governor and a newly announced Senate candidate, will speak Sunday.

Notable in his absence from the planned convention schedule is U.S. Rep. Mel Levine of Los Angeles, the only one of the top-ranked potential candidates missing from the public display. A Levine spokesman said the congressman could not attend the convention because of a scheduling conflict.