Congress: 27th District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space. The answers of the two Democrats vying for their party’s nomination are listed below in alphabetical order; those of the Republicans follow. Republican Louis Morelli, a taxpayers’ organization attorney from Glendale did not respond to the questionnaire. Peace and Freedom, Libertarian and Green party candidates are unopposed in the June 2 primary.

Federal Deficit

Q. Do you support, in principle, reducing the federal deficit or spending more on social programs by raising the taxes of upper-income Americans, defined as individuals making about $100,000 and couples earning about $150,000? Grula: Yes. I favor raising taxes of upper-income Americans to do both--reduce the federal deficit and spend more on social programs. In the 1980s, the rich got richer and everyone else stayed the same or got poorer. This needs to be corrected.

Kahn: Yes. This economy desperately needs public investment in the infrastructure in the short term, and a long-term strategy that includes investment in people. This country will go nowhere, economically or socially, if we don’t act now to take care of families and invest in our children. That would mean national health insurance, universal prenatal and post-natal care, nutrition programs, a parental leave policy, safe and reliable day care and Head Start for every eligible child. I support federal spending on the infrastructure even if that means raising the deficit by $50 billion to $100 billion (but for one year only.)

Allen: I agree that the deficit must be reduced in principle, not by raising taxes on the rich, but by reducing or eliminating billions going to grants and loans to foreign governments and using the defense peace dividend.

Hatch: No. Why punish those who have worked successfully because government has failed?

Moorhead: No. What has been missing from efforts to improve the economy is deficit reduction, not increasing taxes. Spending more on social programs should be delayed until the debt is under control as the national debt poses a growing threat to all social programs.

Capital Gains

Q. Do you favor President Bush’s proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?

Grula: No. We have no business lowering taxes with our current deficit. I might support a capital gains tax cut if it is applies only to certain long-term investments that will help build our manufacturing sector.

Kahn: No. Bush’s proposals are targeted at giving wealthy people a windfall, and don’t make sense as a long-term strategy of rebuilding the American economy.

Allen: Yes. It will encourage investment and stimulate the economy, which is much needed during the recession.

Hatch: Yes. If monies are reinvested in industry.

Moorhead: Yes. Seventy percent of capital assets are held by middle- and lower-income people. A capital gains tax cut would act as an economic stimulus for the construction industry and, in turn, the many other industries that are dependent upon construction. I believe the cut in the capital gains rate should be graduated so those who held property the longest would pay a smaller percentage.

Balanced Budget

Q. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Grula: No. We’ve gotten along for over 200 years without one, and we don’t need one now.

Kahn: No. Deficit spending is necessary to stimulate the economy at certain times. If we want to keep Congress and the President from wasteful spending, we’d be better off finding a way to elect people who understand what it’s like to live in a real world.

Allen: Yes. If it passes, we can make it work by cutting foreign aid, rerouting defense money and cracking down on Japan and others on the trade imbalance.

Hatch: No. Just elect competent congressmen and a President with wisdom to balance the budget.

Moorhead: Yes. Interest on the national debt now is almost as high as our expenditure on defense. It is becoming a tremendous burden and Congress has not been willing to take the necessary steps to bring it under control. I do believe, however, that the line-item veto would be a better way of accomplishing the same goal.

Defense Reductions

Q. With the end of the Cold War, do you favor deep reductions in the $290 - billion annual defense budget? If so, how much could it be safely reduced in one year? Five years?

Grula: Yes. One year--10%. Five years--50%.

Kahn: Yes. Savings in the first year could be as great as $20 billion in uninflated dollars. Over five years, I believe $150 billion in total could be cut. I support closing our bases in Europe and bringing all of our troops back to the U.S., both to delay base closings here and to make sure consumer spending we create is helping our own economy.

Allen: No. Light cuts, not deep. As President Kennedy said: “Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt, can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be used.”

Hatch: No. Not until we determine where the battlefields of the future will present themselves.

Moorhead: Yes. I support the reductions that have been made by the Administration, and some others, although some jobs in our state have been lost because of these cuts. It still is not a totally safe world; we cannot afford to return to the vulnerable position we were in before each of the world wars and during the 1970s.

Defense Savings

Q. What should any defense savings be used for: lower taxes, reduced deficit, spending on domestic programs?

Grula: Reducing the deficit and spending on domestic programs, not for lowering taxes.

Kahn: I reject the notion of a “peace dividend” that can be spent on a specific program. We have to invest in the economy (infrastructure and research), in worker training, in programs to make children healthier and better educated, and in national health insurance, and we have to make these investments regardless of the world situation.

Allen: Domestic programs. If we are to be a true free and honest nation, charity must begin at home.

Hatch: Reduce deficit, then work on domestic programs.

Moorhead: The whole budget must be considered item by item, but we have, in reality, been going into deficit far more than we can save from the defense budget. Fiscal responsibility is important to the welfare of the American people.

Medicare Benefits

Q. Should the government reduce Medicare benefits for the wealthy to help alleviate the federal budget deficit?

Grula: Yes.

Kahn: No. Let’s stop blaming senior citizens for our budget problems. Any inequities should be handled as part of a universal national health insurance program.

Allen: No. If a person earned it honestly, they deserve it. If we run our government correctly, we won’t need to pick on Medicare.

Hatch: No.

Moorhead: No. It is to the benefit of everyone that the wealthy be kept in the Medicare program and contributing to its cost. Medicare was set up to give uniform medical care to senior citizens. It would be wrong to take their money and exclude them from the program.

Wasted Money

Q. Do you believe a lot of money is being wasted on social welfare programs?

Grula: No. Some waste occurs in any program, but I don’t think a lot of money is wasted on social welfare programs. The military wastes much more money.

Kahn: No. However, a full-employment economy would save money now spent on unemployment compensation and instituting national health insurance would enable parents with children to get off welfare. The way things are now, a minimum wage job won’t cover the cost of living for a family.

Allen: No. We need to put incentives in programs to keep families together and encourage a slow, job-trained transition out of poverty.

Hatch: Yes. Specifically, the illegal aliens receiving billions in service, paying very little taxes into the system.

Moorhead: Yes. Numerous studies have indicated that the federal government is inefficient. Too much money is expended in management and delivery of services and too little gets to the needy. And there are too many duplicated programs. These programs need to be carefully monitored to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is being used only in instances where people are actually needy--and being helped by it.

Welfare Benefits

Q. Do you support reducing welfare benefits of parents who do not go to school, attend training or find a job; do not make sure that their children attend school or get basic medical care, or who continue to have more children while on welfare?

Grula: No.

Kahn: Americans are willing to take responsibility for their own lives if the opportunity is offered in the form of education, job training and good available jobs. Parents with children have special problems and needs, including day care and free medical care for the kids. A national policy on these issues would do more to reduce the welfare roles than all the punitive measures we could think of.

Allen: Yes. All but having more children. This free government has no right to tell its citizens they can’t procreate. All other conditions are good ones to impose.

Hatch: Yes. All of the above and more. No argument against worthy welfare recipients.

Moorhead: Yes. It is appropriate that the government set reasonable limits on welfare recipients. Taking the necessary steps to help them become independent and to get their children to school so that they have proper training and care are reasonable standards. Indiscriminate giving of benefits does not, in the long term, serve well the individual or society.

Costly Programs

Q. Do you support significantly increased funding for the following programs, all of which are costly and controversial and employ significant numbers of workers who live in yours and surrounding districts? a) The B-2 Stealth bomber, b) The Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), c) The Space Station. Grula: No on all three.

Kahn: No on all three.

Allen: Yes on all three.

Hatch: Yes on all three, but not significantly.

Moorhead: No on all three. I support reasonable expenditures on each, but no greatly increased funding.

Employee Insurance

Q. Do you support requiring businesses either to provide health insurance to employees or contribute to a fund to provide health care for the uninsured?

Grula: Yes. Health care is a right and should be considered part of an employee’s compensation package.

Kahn: No. We should get health care off the back of American business. I own and run a small business, and I pay 100% of my employees’ health insurance, but I shouldn’t have to be in the business of health care.

vl,3

Allen: I support a national health care system similar to the statewide system Hawaii has had since 1974 that is employer-based and has worked well. Every person in Hawaii is guaranteed health insurance, working or not.

Hatch: Yes. This is certainly better than a government (socialized) medical program with unlimited costs.

Moorhead: No. Business should be asked to contribute to the health insurance of its employees with the possible exception of very small businesses that are struggling to stay alive. They should not have to pay the full cost, however. Business should be encouraged to provide health insurance for employees or to contribute to health care by incentives from the government. We must be careful that requirements of this kind do not discourage job opportunities or make our products non-competitive in the world market.

Health Care

Q. Do you support a national health-care system in which the government establishes fees, pays all the bills and collects taxes to cover the cost?

Grula: Yes. This is the only way to provide universal health care and to contain costs.

Kahn: Yes. Health care isn’t a commodity, it’s a right. A national system is the only way to remove all obstacles to preventive health care, which is the only sane and cost-effective basis for health care. It would save at least $50 billion in paperwork costs alone.

Allen: It needs to be researched, but employer-based is probably better.

Hatch: No. Government can’t competently run its own banking system, among other things.

Moorhead: No. Such a system would be more costly, less efficient and provide poorer care for American citizens than the current system, and no one dares to comment on the taxes we would have to pay if the government paid the other $500 billion in medical costs that they are not paying now.

Soviet Aid

Q. Should the United States be contributing significantly more non-military aid to the former Soviet Union to help it achieve economic reform and long-term stability?

Grula: Yes. We cannot ignore the importance of foreign affairs despite the desire to focus exclusively on domestic issues. We must help reform and stabilize the former Soviet Union to guarantee the peace dividend, which is badly needed for critical domestic programs.

Kahn: No. When we have tens of thousands of Americans jobless, when people can’t afford health care, when 20% of American children live in poverty, how is it that we have a President and Congress who can quickly appropriate billions of dollars to help the former Soviet Union and, at the same time, cut investment in our own communities? We should encourage our European friends to make the major role in assisting the former Soviet states.

Allen: No. Take care of the veterans, the elderly, the homeless and sick first. After all is well at home, then see what conservative measure could help the former Soviet Union.

Hatch: No. Trade and contribute know-how etc., but Europe-Asia must carry the biggest share for now.

Moorhead: No. It is important that we assist the Soviet Union to achieve economic reform and long-term stability by favorable terms of trade, training programs and by other ways. We just do not have the billions of dollars that are being requested as we struggle to get out of our economic slump.

Saddam Hussein

Q. If Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to obey United Nations orders to dismantle Iraq’s arms-making nuclear capability, should the United States urge the United Nations to take military action with U.S. participation?

Grula: No. There is no guarantee that further military action will do any good. Iraq’s nuclear capability has been stopped for now. We should continue military-related sanctions and wait Saddam Hussein out.

Kahn: Yes. We have to continue to encourage a world consensus to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and we have to enforce our will. It’s nothing more than the will to survive.

Allen: Yes. George Bush made a serious mistake when he disregarded Gen. Schwarzkopf’s recommendations to continue the Desert Storm march to Baghdad and arrest or eliminate Saddam Hussein.

Hatch: Yes, but only if the U.S. plays a minor role. Iraq’s neighbors must take their responsible positions and responsibility.

Moorhead: Yes. Only as a last resort, but Hussein cannot be allowed to threaten the rest of the world with nuclear disaster.

Israeli Loan

Q. Would you have unconditionally supported Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help resettle refugees from the former Soviet Union? Grula: No.

Kahn: Yes. Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East and we give billions in loan guarantees to other countries with no stipulations.

Allen: Yes, only if making peace with Arabs was adhered to. Otherwise, a reduced amount of aid only.

Hatch: Yes.

Moorhead: No.

Bush Conditions

Q. If not, did you support the request under the conditions that the Bush Administration sought to impose: that the money would be made available if Israel promised to stop building new settlements on the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

Grula: Yes.

Kahn: No.

Allen: Yes.

Hatch: No.

Moorhead: No.

U. S. Citizenship

Q. Do you support a proposed constitutional amendment that would deny U. S. citizenship to U. S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

Grula: No. It goes against the tradition of this country regarding the treatment of immigrants.

Kahn: No. I am doubtful of most attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Allen: No. Born here legally or otherwise, you are a citizen.

Hatch: Yes. Parents are illegal. Children have no right to immediate citizenship. Also, it’s a cost to the taxpayer.

Moorhead: There is much logic behind such an amendment, but this would change the constitutional provision that has lasted for 200 years in our country. For a person born in this country, it would require him not only to prove his birth, but also the circumstances of his parents at the time he was born. I would want to hear a lot of testimony and arguments on both sides of this issue before making a decision.

Japanese Imports

Q. Should the United States make it harder for Japan to export goods into this country if Japan does not open more of its markets to American goods?

Grula: No. We should keep working to make our goods competitive in Japan and for them to open up their markets.

Kahn: Yes. We should put pressure on the government of Japan to give more power to consumers and workers in Japan. At present, the large companies, banks and distributors in Japan have a stranglehold on supplies and, therefore, prices in that country. When there is real price competition, we’ll have no problem in competing in the Japanese marketplace.

Allen: Absolutely. It must be done.

Hatch: Yes. Starting with U.S. rice, beef, cigarettes, also tariffs on Japanese goods that are subsidized by the Japanese government.

Moorhead: Yes. Our trade with Japan should be balanced, hopefully with the cooperation of Japan, but their restrictions on the importation of our products have deprived us of free trade along with their anti-competitive practices.

Industrial Emissions

Q. Should the United States move more rapidly to limit industrial emissions that may be depleting the ozone layer and contributing to global warming even though such steps may hurt some businesses and eliminate some jobs?

Grula: Yes. The destruction of the ozone layer is particularly disturbing and potentially catastrophic. Despite some hardships, we must move more rapidly to maintain livable conditions on Earth.

Kahn: Yes, but I disagree that jobs will be lost. The economic and social consequences of ozone depletion over our latitudes and global warming are so severe that we have to limit industrial emissions. Since this is true, why not use the transition to new forms of cooling machinery as a great opportunity to encourage new, clean industries that can replace the defense industry in Southern California?

Allen: No. Get the economy in shape first. That’s where the money is needed. And get the homeless and hungry fed and sheltered and the veterans justly compensated. After all that is done, then concern ourselves with the ozone layer.

Hatch: Yes. But only if they remove less vital controls over their industries.

Moorhead: I have been a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act, which will have a significant impact on the greenhouse gases and which will begin extensive monitoring of emissions. Our National Energy Act, which I strongly support, will also have a strong effect on these gases, but we need to improve scientific evidence of the cause of global warming before we take further steps.

Oil Exploration

Q. Barring a national emergency, would you ever support opening up more of the California coastline to oil exploration? If so, under what circumstances?

Grula: No.

Kahn: No.

Allen: Yes. We need to find oil here to release us from dependency on foreign oil, which is a threat to our national security.

Hatch: Yes. Future wars in Iran etc. Reduce threats of oil spills, which can be prevented.

Moorhead: Yes. So far, the offshore drilling in California has been less harmful to the environment than spillage from tankers bringing oil into California. Any drilling certainly should consider the environmental circumstances in the area, as well as the feelings of the people there. This is one of the last areas in the continental United States where a major oil supply is located.

Public Parkland

Q. Do you support increasing the amount appropriated by Congress to buy public parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains, which is $14 million this year?

Grula: Yes. It is important to preserve some natural areas in the Los Angeles area.

Kahn: Yes.

Allen: No. Enough parkland already. Money is needed elsewhere. That is why the homeless are still in the streets.

Hatch: Yes. California needs open land in ever-increasing development.

Moorhead: Yes. I have consistently supported the acquisition of the parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains, but the funding must be kept within the limits of present economic realities.

Campaign Contributions

Q. Do you support reducing the amount of contributions that can be made by special-interest groups to congressional campaigns? If so, to what level?

Grula: Yes. Our election process is completely out of control and this is the only way to reform it and bring democracy back to the system.

Kahn: Yes. I support the reduction of the individual PAC contribution to $1,000 per candidate per election, but only if an entire package of campaign reforms are enacted at the same time that reduces the power of incumbents.

Allen: Yes. I support public funding for all congressional campaigns and setting a $100,000 limit on spending for all congressional campaigns for primary and general elections, with funds used in election year only and any unused money going back to federal fund.

Hatch: Yes. Eliminate, not reduce. Special-interest groups now control Congress.

Moorhead: Yes. A limit of $2,000 per election cycle should be placed on all special interest groups--PACs, labor, environment, etc.

Congressional Perks

Q. If elected, would you decline to accept any of the congressional perks? If yes, please specify which ones.

Grula: I’m not sure. I need to know what is considered a “perk.”

Kahn: I would accept no perks whatsoever, including free health care, health clubs, discounted haircuts, free airline upgrades and all the rest. I also favor severely restricting the ability of members of Congress to mail at taxpayer expense thinly disguised “newsletters” that really are campaign brochures.

Allen: The matter needs more study.

Hatch: Yes. I would move to end all perks and return the recent pay raise.

Moorhead: That is impossible. Most “perks” have been taken away now, but it is still necessary to buy food and eat in the restaurant alongside the public and to have a place to park our cars in the area of the Capitol.

School Vouchers

Q. Do you support giving government vouchers to low- and middle-income parents to allow them to pay their children’s tuition in private or parochial schools?

Grula: No. This idea will further the destruction of the public school system in a number of ways. Instead, I strongly support restoring our public education system.

Kahn: No, because it would destroy what is left of our public schools. What we really need to do to improve schools is to reduce class size to the low 20s because it’s the only proven method of improving education, and it’s the only equitable way to give every kid a chance to learn.

Allen: It’s fair and right, private and public. Parents of both are taxpayers.

Hatch: No. Just remove illegals from our school and demand reform in school systems.

Moorhead: I support such a program in principle, but the public schools have priority and are our principal responsibility. The federal government just does not have money to do all the things we would like to do.

Death Penalty

Q. Do you support capital punishment for any crimes? If so, what?

Grula: No.

Kahn: Yes. There should be a class of crime that would be eligible for the death penalty. One example would be mass murder. Another would be murder for hire.

Allen: Yes. Murder, espionage, drug dealers and distributors whose drugs are known to have killed others.

Hatch: Yes. Premeditated murder, murder of law enforcement agents.

Moorhead: Yes. Premeditated murder and narcotics kingpins.

Gun Sales

Q. Do you support any form of limit on the sales of guns to individuals? Grula: Yes. Only certain types of guns should be allowed to be sold. There should also be restrictions on who is allowed to purchase a gun. For example, a convicted felon should not be able to buy a gun.

Kahn: Yes. There should be a waiting period of at least seven days for the purchase of any gun, and a national system to facilitate background checks. The importation, manufacture and sale of all automatic weapons should be banned.

Allen: No.

Hatch: No, only to convicted felons, etc.

Moorhead: Yes. People with criminal records or mental problems should not be allowed to own guns. There are some extremely dangerous military weapons that also should be restricted.

Affirmative Action

Q. In general, do you think affirmative action in employment of women and members of minority groups has not gone far enough, or has gone too far, or is about right? Grula: Affirmative action still needs improvements.

Kahn: Affirmative action is an important method of assuring a fair society, but we should make sure we are sharing the benefits of society, not the disadvantages. The only way to assure that we all have equal opportunity is to work for and achieve a full-employment economy.

Allen: Not far enough.

Hatch: Too far. We must return to the merit system as soon as possible.

Moorhead: Our present laws are quite adequate. Women and minorities have both made substantial progress and penalties are quite severe for those that discriminate against them in any way.

Abortion Rights

Q. Do you support a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy? Grula: Yes. The rights of a woman to an abortion in this case supersede all the others.

Kahn: Yes. It is the responsibility of the individual woman to make decisions about her body. I support HR25, which prohibits any state from restricting the right of choice before viability.

Allen: No.

Hatch: No. Only in special circumstances.

Moorhead: No.

Abortion Funding

Q. Do you support federal funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Grula: Yes.

Kahn: Yes.

Allen: No.

Hatch: No.

Moorhead: No.

Art Restrictions

Q. Should Congress impose any content restrictions on what it considers obscene or indecent materials in reauthorizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Grula: No. Congress should not micro-manage the arts.

Kahn: No.

Allen: Yes. Morality is not out of style. Neither is common decency.

Hatch: Yes. Government should get out of the business of funding the arts. Make it private donations.

Moorhead: Yes. The purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts is to encourage artists and provide fine art for the enjoyment of the American people. Certainly, if we provide money to the artist, the taxpayer is entitled to get art of high quality that can be enjoyed by a substantial number of our citizens.

Striking Workers

Q. Do you support a law to forbid businesses to hire permanent replacements for striking workers? Grula: No.

Kahn: Yes.

Allen: Yes.

Hatch: No.

Moorhead: No.

Hill or Thomas?

Q. Who do you think was more likely to have told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas? Grula: Anita Hill.

Kahn: Anita Hill seemed to me to be the most believable, while Clarence Thomas did not.

Allen: Clarence Thomas.

Hatch: Difficult to state, but where was Anita years before when the alleged incidents took place?

Moorhead: It may be that both were telling the truth as they remember it, but after 10 years it is doubtful that either of their memories were completely accurate.

Quality of Life

Q. What single change would most improve life in Southern California?

Grula: A transformation of our education system. This would result in a greatly improved quality of life, all the way from revitalizing the economy to greatly reducing crime.

Kahn: A national commitment to taking care of the family by investing in American children.

Allen: More affordable housing.

Hatch: Control drugs and illegal immigration at our borders, resulting in less crime, overpopulation and costs.

Moorhead: The early completion of our public transportation system. With the growth of population, streets are congested, freeways are jammed and parking is expensive or not available. We badly need an alternate transportation system.

Public Figure

Q. What public figure do you most admire? Grula: Congressman George Brown of California.

Kahn: Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Allen: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Woodrow Wilson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Ted Koppel.

Hatch: Harry Truman. Teddy Roosevelt.

Moorhead: Abraham Lincoln. He was strong and courageous. He was compassionate and believed in equal rights for all Americans, and he was willing to give his life to preserve those rights and our union.

Literary Influence

Q. What, if any, book have you recently read that influenced your view of public policy? Grula: “The Politics of Rich and Poor” by Kevin Phillips.

Kahn: Robert Reich’s “The Work of Nations.”

Allen: None in particular, save “The JFK Conspiracy.”

Hatch: Not answered.

Moorhead: “In the Arena” by Richard Nixon.

CONTENDERS

John Grula, 39, is a research scientist at Phytogen, an agricultural biotechnology company in Pasadena, where he has lived for 10 years. A Democrat, he has sought public office once before. In 1981, he ran for the City Council in Seattle, Wash.

Doug Kahn, 39, of Altadena, owns a typesetting business. He is a founding member of the Arroyo Democratic Club and has been active in the campaigns of several local elected leaders. He is making his first try for political office.

Lionel Allen Jr., 38, of Altadena, is a financial consultant and disabled veteran. He has served in both the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy. A Republican, Allen is a strong supporter of law enforcement and is making his first bid for public office.

Barry L. Hatch, 55, of Alhambra, is a teacher in the Montebello Unified School District. A Republican, he was elected to the Monterey Park City Council in 1986. He was the target of an unsuccessful recall attempt in 1987, but lost a bid for reelection in 1990.

Carlos J. Moorhead, 70, of Glendale, has been a congressman since 1972 and is seeking election to an 11th term. Before his election to Congress, he served for five years in the state Assembly. Moorhead is a conservative Republican in the mold of President Bush.

Congressional District 27

Overview: Reapportionment placed more of the San Fernando Valley and less of the San Gabriel Valley into this district. The newly drawn boundaries also contain more Democratic voters. However, the area remains primarily Republican. Carlos J. Moorhead, a conservative Republican from Glendale, has represented most of the district since 1972. Moorhead faces three challengers in the GOP primary. Two Democrats are vying for their party’s nomination.

Where: The district includes all of Altadena, Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, Pasadena, San Marino, South Pasadena, Sunland and Tujunga, and portions of Lake View Terrace, Sun Valley, Sylmar and Northeast Los Angeles. To find out if you live in the district, call the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder’s office at (213) 721-1100.

Demographics

Anglo: 61%

Latino: 21%

Black: 8%

Asian: 10%

Party Registration

Demo: 42%

GOP: 47%

Others: 11%

Candidates:

Democrat

John Grula, research scientist

Doug Kahn, small business owner

Peace and Freedom

Margaret L. Edwards, activist

Republican

Lionel Allen Jr., executive, disabled veteran

Barry L. Hatch, teacher

Carlos J. Moorhead, congressman

Louis Morelli, tax reduction advocate

Libertarian

Dennis Decherd, computer system analyst