Sterling Norris for D.A. : Long-shot candidate is contest’s best prosecutor

Making a choice in the heated race for district attorney of Los Angeles is not an easy call for voters. The embattled two-term incumbent, Ira Reiner, is not as bad a prosecutor as his worst critics contend, and none of his four opponents has yet broken out of the pack. The call for “anyone-but-Reiner,” while increasingly heard, is not by itself a sound basis on which to choose a D.A. Even so, the truth is that after eight years in office and at least as much controversy as accomplishment to show for his efforts, Dist. Atty. Reiner cannot make an open-and-shut case for his reelection.

Moreover, the post is arguably the most powerful in Los Angeles County. There is only one district attorney for the county’s 8 million residents, and that office helps set a tone and establish law-enforcement priorities as no other can. Voters must examine this race carefully and make an informed choice. Don’t sit it out. The question is: In this field is there a better choice than the incumbent?

REINER’S PROBLEM: The incumbent D.A. finds himself under the microscope because his office has lost huge cases (Rodney King was but the latest) and because he sometimes tries too hard to lob applause lines to the political bleachers.

But would anyone among his opponents make a better D.A.? That’s the question. Deputy Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has his admirers, in part because of his thoughtful stands on many issues. But his 23 years in the D.A.’s office have been marred by periodic questions from colleagues about his deportment. Robert Tannenbaum, a Beverly Hills City Council member and before that an assistant district attorney in New York City, over the years has shown tendencies toward abrasiveness and brusqueness that have made him some enduring enemies on both coasts. Lawyer Howard Johnson lacks sufficient experience.

That leaves Deputy Dist. Atty. Sterling Norris, a 23-year prosecutor whose courtroom victories include a number of dramatic headline cases. In this nominally nonpartisan race, Norris is the sole Republican; this means in overwhelmingly Democratic Los Angeles County he faces an uphill fight. But as voters consider their options, many will want to seriously consider this articulate candidate.

THE NORRIS OPTION: Even those in the L.A. district attorney’s office who very strenuously disagree with Norris’ conservative political views speak admiringly of his competence, professionalism and commitment to aggressive but ethical prosecution. The only major question about Norris is whether he would be politically divisive. The Times itself strongly disagrees with Norris’ championing of get-tough-with-crooks gimmicks like Proposition 115, the anti-Rose Bird movement and capital punishment.

But does an election endorsement require unanimity on the issues? On the contrary, a newspaper’s endorsement for reasons of character and competence does not mean that policy differences with the candidate are any less deeply felt. The ultimate purpose of endorsing is to help voters decide what to do. If a change is needed in the D.A.’s office, then The Times, like the voters, must come to some measured judgment.

Norris has twice been named “prosecutor of the year” by peer groups. He is considered to be a top-drawer professional. In the real world that voters face next Tuesday-- of the choices available to them-- Norris is the best option in a field that otherwise fails to inspire.

Norris has the ability to help lead the county through what are sure to be difficult days ahead. To do that, he will need to avoid political divisiveness--a serious danger in a city and county still reeling from the aftershocks of the riots. He will need to prove that he is a great administrator as well as a great prosecutor, and he will need to prove that he can be a great district attorney for all of the people of Los Angeles.