It’s Back to Square One in California’s Politics : Primary: Check-bouncing candidates may have gotten a reprieve if they have a serious urban agenda. But now women candidates face new hurdles.

The Rodney G. King verdict and its violent aftermath have reshaped California’s political landscape.

Remember the House check-bouncing scandal that threatened to bring down incumbents left and right? The Los Angeles riot appears to have knocked it off the political radar screen. That’s good news for candidates, like U.S. Senate hopeful Barbara Boxer, who have lots of checks to explain.

The bad news for candidates like Democrats Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, also seeking the job of U.S. senator, is that when crime becomes a hot political issue, it can work against women candidates. Voters may be more drawn to male images of strength than agents of change. Feinstein, for example, was hurt in the 1990 election, when her issues of choice and change were overshadowed by the economy and the Persian Gulf War.

The first hints of just how treacherous the shifting political terrain will be may be unearthed in next month’s primary results. It’s clear that, from the presidential campaign on down, urban issues have moved up the political agenda. So have law-and-order issues, which had been eclipsed by the recessionary economy.

For George Bush, the outcome of the California primary will indicate how the Republican electorate judges his reaction to the Los Angeles riot. For Bill Clinton, California is where he must forge a response that satisfies both Democrats who suffered from the violence and Democrats who deserted to Ronald Reagan and Bush but have begun wandering back to the fold.

The anti-incumbent campaigns of Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. and Patrick J. Buchanan might benefit from the riot fallout. Disturbingly, the “take-back” rhetoric of the two campaigns and the language heard on the streets of Los Angeles were eerily similar. But California’s history of protest voting in presidential primaries, particularly on the Democratic side, is usually a message to the presumptive nominee not to get cocky.

Inside-the-Beltway types have quickly embraced the conventional wisdom that social unrest will mean a turn to the right. They contend the Watts riot and student unrest elected Reagan California’s governor in 1966. Two years later, Richard M. Nixon narrowly won the presidency after more urban riots and campus unrest.

But these victories were not simply ideological. They stemmed, in large part, from a repudiation of the Democratic administrations then in power. This time, the national and many state administrations are in Republican hands, and Bush and his GOP mates may be the losers.

In their prediction of a rightward turn, the Beltway Bunch are betting that conservative U.S. Senate candidates William E. Dannemeyer and Bruce Herschensohn will win their respective GOP primaries. But they don’t hear the voices of California conservatives like state Sen. Ed Davis, who knocked the King verdict.

Yes, there has been a stern reaction against the violence in some quarters. But the Los Angeles Police Department, and law enforcement in general, slowly and timidly responded to the outbreak of rioting in South Los Angeles--and conservative voters know it.

Furthermore, the King verdict, or the urban agenda that evolves from it, won’t alone define Senate candidacies. Incumbent Sen. John Seymour and Rep. Tom Campbell, better funded than their GOP rivals, won’t let it.

The Democratic candidates will all come down pretty much on the same side. They may, however, be unusually quiet about it. They can’t be sure black voters will turn out to reward them for their stance; black turnout has been low in the presidential primaries. In any case, should minority voters decide to vent their anger, the impact of increased numbers cannot be felt until after the primary. Voter registration closed last week.

It is at the local level where the fallout of the Los Angeles riot will mostly be felt. The contest for L.A. County district attorney has been redefined, with incumbent Ira Reiner being blamed for dropping the prosecution’s ball in yet another high-profile case.

Support for Charter Amendment F, a police-reform proposal embodying many Christopher Commission recommendations, may have been boosted by the police response. Everyone felt threatened; everyone was angry. The imperious conduct of Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, the measure’s loudest critic, may have earned him a gig as “Yes on F” poster boy.

In the county supervisorial races, the pre-riot issues of development and incumbency now share the spotlight with county services and law enforcement. In the campaign for the 2nd Supervisorial seat, where most of the riot damage occurred, candidate Diane Watson, a state senator now representing parts of the area, has been vocal and active from the instant the Simi Valley verdict came down. Her major opponent, former Supervisor and Congresswoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, has not joined the rhetoric battle but has offered her own revitalization plan, which might be more appealing to middle-class black and white voters.

Although incumbents remain at risk in the June primary because voter anger endures, elected officials may have one last chance. If they will address the problems Los Angeles laid bare, if they can begin to rebuild the city and restore confidence in government, anti-incumbent fervor may subside by November.

These are monumental ifs. They presuppose a political will long lacking in California. They require an end to the partisan and personal animosities that have consumed government leaders.

And then there is the economy. In California, it remains the driving issue of the 1992 elections. And now the costs of the riot must be added to the rapidly mounting state and local budget deficits.

The political reality of the Two Californias--one protecting the dream it has achieved, the other struggling to realize the dream--has again taken its toll. The message from the 1992 elections could be that it’s time to close the divide. Or it could be that the split is irreparable and the state is ungovernable.